Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BILLS.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Sir Dennis Herbert): I beg to move,
That the promoters of every Private Bill which shall have originated in this House or been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session of Parliament shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereon in order to proceed with the same, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be given in the Committee and Private Bill Office not later than Noon on the last Sitting day of the present Session, and that all fees thereon due up to that period be paid:
That not later than Five o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament every such Bill which has originated in this House shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, with a declaration annexed thereto signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill with respect to which proceedings have been so suspended at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in the present Session; and, as soon as conveniently may be in the next Session of Parliament, every such Bill shall be laid by one of the clerks in the Committee and Private Bill Office upon the Table of the House:
That every Bill so laid upon the Table shall be deemed to have been read the First time; and shall be deemed to have been read a second time if such Bill shall have been read a Second time previously to its being suspended; and, if such Bill shall have been reported by any Committee in the present Session, the Committee stage shall be dispensed with and the Bill ordered to lie upon the Table, or to be read the Third time, as the case may be:
That in case any Bill brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, upon which the proceedings shall have been suspended in this House, shall be brought from the House of Lords in the next Session of Parliament, a declaration signed as aforesaid stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill which was brought
from the House of Lords in the present Session, shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office before the First Reading of such Bill; and, provided that such deposit has been duly made, such Bill shall be read the First time and be further proceeded with in the same manner as Bills introduced into this House during the present Session, with this modification that if any such Bill shall have been amended in this House in the present Session, such amendments shall be deemed to have been made in Committee and the Bill, as amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table or, if the Bill shall have been ordered to be read the Third time in the present Session, to be read the Third time:
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to any such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session, other than Third Reading, and that no further fees be charged in respect of such stages:
That the said Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
This Motion is in accordance with the usual procedure and is in order to prevent waste of effort and expense, in regard to Private Bills, in the possible event of this Session ending rather earlier than the date originally contemplated. It applies only to three Private Bills, two of which have already gone through by far the greater part of their natural course, and the third of which has made considerable progress. The only thing I need point out is that, if this Motion is carried, the House will not lose control of any of these Bills, because there is preserved in every case the necessity for the further consideration and Third Reading of the Bill in this House.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: May I ask whether the Lindsey County Council (Sandhills) Bill and the Humber Bridge Bill are two of the Bills included in the Motion?

Sir D. HERBERT: The three Bills affected are the Humber Bridge Bill, the Lindsey County Council (Sandhills) Bill, and the Amalgamated Societies for the Blind Bill [Lords].

Question put, and agreed to.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Chepping Wycombe) Bill,

Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.

Edinburgh Corporation (Sheriff Court House, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill, Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That there be laid before the House a Return of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon, during Session 1930–31 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 4, of Session 1930–31)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: There are two pages of Motions for Returns and those Returns, when printed, will probably run into several hundred's of pages. Is there any means of opposing any of these Motions on the ground of economy? Many of them are not necessary and are only of academic interest to the House. I would mention, for instance, Motion's No. 8 and No. 9, relating to the number of hours of sittings and the hours of adjournment, and the duration of the sittings of Committees. In these days, should not the House set an example of economy to others in this respect?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Member takes objection, these Returns would have to stand over.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Date when Closure moved, and by whom.
Question before House or Committee when moved.
Whether in House or Committee.
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman.
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.


and (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.


Date when Closure moved, and by whom.
Question before Committee when moved.
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Chairman.
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.


(in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 6, of Session 1930–31)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Captain Bourne): These Returns have always been given to the House and the great majority of them are absolutely necessary, particularly for the Committee of Selection and the Committee Office. As regards No. 8, to which the hon. and gallant Member referred, the return in that case is not printed, but is kept in manuscript. I would point out that in any case these returns have to be made, because they are required for the officials of the House and the only question is whether they are to be printed or not. The work of preparation is done by the officials of the House, and the actual cost of printing is comparatively slight, and the economy to be effected in that respect would therefore be comparatively small. I hope, with that explanation, that the House will agree to these customary Returns.

Question put, and agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Return ordered,
showing, with reference to Session 1930–31, (1) the total number of days on which the House sat; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 5, of Session 1930–31)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

CLOSURE OF DEBATE.

Return ordered,
respecting application of Standing Order No. 26 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1930–31, (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Return ordered,
of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, and Bills for confirming Schemes under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1930–31:
Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1930–31 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the Sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:
Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1930–31, have been referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member was summoned and on which each Member attended:
And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, and Bills for confirming Schemes under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the Sittings of the Committee (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.003, of Session 1930–31)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

PUBLIC BILLS.

Return ordered,
of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1930–31; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House, but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords, but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.004, of Session 1930–31)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Return ordered,
of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1930–31, with the total number of signatures in that Session (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.005, of Session 1930–31)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

SELECT COMMITTEES.

Return ordered,
of the number of Select Committees appointed in Session 1930–31 and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.001, of Session 1930–31)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

Return ordered,
of the days on which the House sat in Session 1930–31, stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after 11 p.m.; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

STANDING COMMITTEES.

Return ordered,
for Session 1930–31 of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the five Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47, showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of days on which each Committee sat, and the names of all Bills considered by a Standing Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing, in the ease of each Bill, the particular Standing Committee by whom it was considered, the number of days on which it was considered by the Committee, and the number of Members present on each of those days (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.002, of Session 1930–31."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BANK OFFICIALS, SCOTLAND (PROTECTION).

Dr. FORGAN: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the circumstances under which a bank teller, on duty alone in a branch bank, was murdered in Clydebank on the 12th August, 1931; and if the Scottish Office has advised the joint stock banks in Scotland in the interest of their employés to adopt the rule, observed in trustee savings banks, that at least two members of the staff must be in attendance within bank premises during the transaction of all business?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I understand that the attention of the banks has been drawn to the matter by the staff organisations in England and Scotland, and it seems unnecessary, therefore, that my right hon. Friend should offer any advice on the matter.

Dr. FORGAN: In view of the fact that the answers given by various joint stock banks in Scotland have not given satisfaction to the employés and do not meet their reasonable demand to be protected from assault and possible murder, will the hon. Gentleman advise his right hon. Friend of the desirability of convening an informal meeting of the representatives of the joint stock banks in order to consider coming into line with the practice in the trustee savings banks?

Mr. SKELTON: I shall convey the suggestion of the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend, but of course the hon. Member is aware that my right hon. Friend has no jurisdiction in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (GLAMORGAN).

Sir WILLIAM JENKINS: 3.
asked the Secretary for Mines the average output per person employed in mines in Glamorgan from 1920, each year, to 1931, also the average wages paid per person for the same period?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Foot): As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's
permission, circulate such information as I have in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret that particulars of wages paid in Glamorgan are not available, but I will give figures for South Wales and Monmouth as a whole.

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: Can the hon. Gentleman give the answer to the question on the Paper—whether the average is up or down?

Mr. FOOT: The figures vary, and it is difficult to give an average, but, taking the output of coal per person employed in the mines in Glamorgan in 1930, the tonnage was 260, and the average annual cash earnings in that district in that year was £117.

Following is the reply:

Year.
Output of coal per person employed at Mines in Glamorgan.
Average Annual Cash Earnings of Coal Miners in South Wales and Monmouthshire.





Tons.
£


1920
…
…
168
252


1922
…
…
203
127


1923
…
…
212
136


1924
…
…
204
139


1925
…
…
208
139


1927
…
…
243
124


1928
…
…
258
126


1929
…
…
271
129


1930
…
…
260
117


1931
…
…
Not yet available.

NOTE.—The particulars of earnings for the years 1927–30 relate to the years ended 31st January, 1928, 1929, 1930 and 1931. The years 1921 and 1926 have been omitted as they were affected by prolonged national disputes.

Sir W. JENKINS: 4.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of collieries closed down in Glamorgan from 1920 to the last available date in 1931, giving each year separately; the number of men affected; and the number of men employed each year from 1920 to 1931?

Mr. FOOT: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: Has not the deplorable situation in the coal industry in South Wales been caused by the excessive dumping of steel?

Following is the reply:

The information, so far as it is available, is as follows:


Year
Pits in Glamorgan closed and not re-opened.
Average number of persons employed at coal mines in Glamorgan.


Number.
Number of Wage-earners employed at date of closing.
Wage-earners.
Clerks and Salaried Persons.


1920

Not available
179,833


1921

153,535


1922

161,182


1923

167,407


1924
41
8,894
160,895 1
2,882


1925
31
5,766
136,752
2,192


1926
7
487
Mch. 138,687
2,153





Dec. 98,781
2,121


1927
69
6,368
123,175
2,130


1928
36
4,975
107,989
1,803


1929
25
998
113,887
1,618


1930
34
3,457
108,327
1,711


1931 (to 26th Sept.)
73
17,251
96,241 (on 26th Sept.)
Not yet available.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUSSIAN CEREALS (IMPORTS).

Commander BELLAIRS: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how much Soviet Russian wheat, barley and oats is credited to other countries by reason of transit through those countries; and whether any flour was received from Soviet Russia in the cereal year 1930–31?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have no information as to whether any of the imports of wheat, barley and oats into the United Kingdom registered as consigned from countries other than the Soviet Union originated in the Soviet Union. During the 12 months ended the 31st August, 1931, no flour imported into the United Kingdom was registered as consigned from the Soviet Union.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to obtaining information for future Parliaments?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I know of no means by which I could get the information. There is no source from which I could get that information. Nearly all this corn comes from the Black Sea, and it is most unlikely that any part of it is transferred across the railways of other countries.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Is there anything wrong, in these hard times, in getting cheap cereals from Russia?

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the imports into the United Kingdom, the value of the exports of produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom, and the value of exports of imported merchandise for the month of September, or, if not, the said values for the first, second, and third completed weeks of the month, or such other information on the subject as is available?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Particulars of the total trade of the United Kingdom are not compiled for periods of less than a calendar month. The figures for September will be published in the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom" on Monday next.

Mr. OLIVER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the approximate figures which he gets every week show a considerable increase in the exports?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not get any returns every week. I only get returns at the end of the month.

Colonel GRETTON: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give particulars of the imports of dutiable articles during the month of September?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Particulars of the imports during September
of the more important dutiable goods will be found in the September issue of the monthly "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom," which will be published on Monday next. I should explain that owing to the labour involved full particulars of the imports of these goods are not compiled by the Customs except for calendar years.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how these returns compare with the figures of the previous month, and the average of the previous three months?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I could do so when I get them, but I cannot get them until next Monday.

PRIME MINISTER'S APPEAL.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the desirability of broadcasting an appeal to British subjects throughout the world, and especially in our overseas territories, to direct, so far as possible, the trade which they may be able to influence towards the Mother Country, with the object of stimulating national employment?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): In a letter which I wrote to the chairman of the United Dominions Trust, Limited, and which received the widest publicity in the Press on the 18th September, I used the words which I now repeat:
In their expenditure I hope that everyone will be vigilant in making demands for British labour and its products.
I know that without any further specific appeal such as my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind we can confidently rely upon our fellow British subjects throughout the world to do everything, in this and in other ways, to help the country in its present difficulties to maintain, with as little impairment as may be, our common heritage.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Have there been any results so far? Has there been any reduction in Colonial tariffs?

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY CHARGES, LONDON AREA.

Mr. DAY: 10.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the London and Home
Counties Joint Electricity Authority have arrived at a decision with reference to reducing the number of variations in the basis of charge for domestic purposes in the London area; and will he give particulars?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I am sending the hon. Member a copy of an answer given on this subject to the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. West) on the let July. The position is still as indicated in that reply.

Mr. DAY: Cannot the hon. Gentleman do anything to facilitate matters and bring about uniformity of price for these electrical appliances?

Mr. PYBUS: We are doing everything possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHERE VALLEY (BY-PASS ROAD SCHEME).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 11.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that proposals are on foot by the Guildford Rural District Council for a 60-foot by-pass road through the Shere valley; that such proposals, if carried out, would ruin the amenities of this district, and would involve heavy cost to the taxpayer; that such proposals are opposed by the majority of the residents of the district; and, in view of the need for economy, will he withhold his sanction from this scheme?

Mr. PYBUS: I am aware of proposals for a new road which would have the effect of by-passing Shere. This is part of a town-planning scheme, and interested parties will have an opportunity of voicing their objections at a local inquiry by the Ministry of Health which will be held on the 13th October. The scheme is in a preliminary stage, and no application has been made to me for financial assistance.

Sir PATRICK FORD: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Surrey County Council to take steps in this matter without further delay?

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIEN MUSICIANS.

Mr. DAY: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the number of permits issued to foreign dance bands
to enter Great Britain from 1st January, 1931, showing the number of musicians employed in these various bands; whether the permits were for appearance either in music halls or cabaret performances; and the average length of such permits?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Milner Gray): No permits have been issued since the 1st January, 1931, to enable foreign bands to come to this country to play for dancing, but three individual foreigners have been granted permission since that date to join British dance bands. Eight bands—comprising 148 individuals—have been admitted since the 1st January, 1931, to play at music hall or cabaret performances. Two of these are still here. The validity of the permits has varied from seven days to three months, but extensions have been granted in some instances.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether extensions have been granted to the three individual permits and for how long? Are they indefinite?

Mr. GRAY: I could not answer that question as regards three individuals without having further inquiries made.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Is there any prospect of reciprocity now from America so as to allow Jack Hylton's and other bands to go there?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ALEXANDRA PALACE (RECONSTRUCTION SCHEME).

Mr. MESSER: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Alexandra Palace trustees will be in a difficulty if the suggested grant by the Unemployment Grants Committee is withheld; if he is aware that the work would have found employment for 500 men for three years, and that in anticipation of the grant the preliminary work has been started; and if he can hold out any hope that the grant may be made at an early date?

Mr. GRAY: My hon. Friend has received further representations with regard to this scheme within the last few
days, and is considering whether any useful purpose would be served by again referring the matter to the Unemployment Grants Committee, which has already on two occasions declined to recommend a grant.

Mr. MESSER: Is it not a fact that a promise was made that a grant would be made?

Mr. GRAY: A grant can only be made by the Minister on a recommendation from the Unemployments Grants Committee, and that Committee on two occasions have refused to recommend grants.

TRANSITIONAL BENEFIT (SCOTLAND).

Mr. G. HARDIE: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his Department has yet fixed the standard of income before public assistance is to be given in Scotland; and whether the old age or other pension is to be part of the calculations?

Mr. GRAY: I assume the hon. Member refers to the proposals for making transitional payments. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Members for Frame (Mr. Gould) and South Shields (Mr. Ede) on 1st October. I understand that the practice of public assistance authorities in Scotland in this respect is broadly the same as that of authorities in England and Wales, as set out in that reply.

Mr. HARDIE: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it an injustice to Scotland that the law of Scotland should be sought to be changed to bring it into line with that of England? Is it not a great injustice to he inflicted on the poor people of Scotland?

Mr. LAWSON: When will the regulations be laid?

Mr. GRAY: They will be laid shortly.

DARLINGTON.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 13
asked the Minister of Labour (1) the total number of dependants for whom benefit was paid at the Darlington Employment Exchange for each of the last four weeks for which figures are available; and the total number who received this benefit on behalf of their dependants;
(2) the number of persons at the Darlington Employment Exchange who are in receipt of benefit, the number who
have drawn 26 weeks' benefit, the number on transitional benefit, and the number who will be referred to the public assistance committee for assessment as to their future rate of benefit under the Government's new proposals;
(3) the total amount of benefit paid at the Darlington Employment Exchange to

Persons on the registers of the Darlington Employment Exchange and their dependants.


—
Men.
Women.
Total.


Number on the Registers at 21st September, 1931, with claims to benefit admitted or under consideration.
4,974
458
5,432


Number on the Registers at 21st September, 1931, with claims authorised for transitional benefit.
1,397
49
1,446


Number in receipt of benefit other than tranisitional benefit at 14th September, 1931, who had received 156 days or more in their current benefit years.
863
63
926



Men.
Boys.
Women.
Girls.
Total.


Benefit paid direct by the Exchange during the accounting weeks which included the dates specified below:
£
£
£
£
£


A. Amount paid:







24th August, 1931
4,158
26
290
7
4,481


31st August, 1931
4,061
24
262
8
4,355


7th September, 1931
4,270
26
265
8
4,569


14th September, 1931
4,325
27
272
6
4,630


B. Number of persons to whom benefit was paid:







24th August, 1931
3,711
65
403
24
4,203


31st August, 1931
3,749
63
399
25
4,236


7th September, 1931
3,879
72
385
25
4,361


14th September, 1931
3,971
71
412
21
4,475



17th August, 1931.*


Number of claims on which benefit was authorised in respect of dependants.
2,375


Number of dependants in respect of whom benefit was authorised:



Adults
2,297


Children
3,564


* The latest date for which figures are available.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE (DISCIPLINARY ACTION).

Mr. DAY: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the investigation held by the Disciplinary Board of the Metropolitan Police into the charges in which one inspector and 23 constables were suspended from duty last July, pending investigation for alleged corrupt dealing with bookmakers and street traders, has now been finally completed; and can he give the results?

men, boys, women, and girls, respectively, for each of the last four weeks for which figures are available, and the total number of recipients in each class?

Mr. GRAY: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): The whole of the cases have now been dealt with by the Discipline Board as follow: One inspector and 26 constables have been dismissed. All these men appealed to the Commissioner, who dismissed the appeals. One sergeant has been reduced to the rank of constable and transferred to another division; four constables have been fined anti transferred to other divisions, and one
sergeant and eight constables were found not guilty. The inspector and 17 of the constables who were dismissed appealed to my predecessor or myself under the Police (Appeals) Act. One appeal was withdrawn, 14 have been dismissed, and the remainder are still under consideration.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when some final decision will be arrived at with regard to the appeals outstanding?

Sir H. SAMUEL: There are only three still outstanding, and they will be dealt with very shortly.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: What steps are being taken to prosecute the people who have corrupted or endeavoured to corrupt these men?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I should like to have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR NAVIGATION REGULATIONS.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to the transgression of air navigation rules by the flying of a civil aeroplane on 30th September under the upper portion of Tower Bridge and Westminster Bridge; and what action his Department propose to take in the matter as regards this incident and the prevention of similar incidents in the future?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Yes, Sir; the police are in touch with the Air Ministry regarding the institution of proceedings against the pilot concerned for infringement of the Air Navigation Regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORDNANCE SURVEY (STAFF).

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: 21.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the total number employed in all categories at the Ordnance Survey establishment at Southampton in 1913–14 and in 1930–31; the total expenditure in salaries and wages; and the total working expenses apart from salaries and wages?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): The number employed in all technical and clerical
categories of the Ordnance Survey in Great Britain in 1913–14 was 1,624, as against 1,034 in 1930–31. The total expenditure in salaries and wages was £162,990 in 1913–14, as compared with £214,360 in 1930–31, whilst other working expenses amounted in 1913–14 to £25,250, and in 1930–31 to £26,160. There was, however, a decrease in the net cost from £152,310 in 1913–14 to £130,740 in 1930–31, owing to an increase in appropriations-in-aid. The above figures are exclusive of artificers and cleaners, whose work has partly been taken over since 1914 by the Office of Works.

Sir G. HAMILTON: While I am very much obliged for that long answer, may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that my question asked for the expenses at Southampton, not throughout the country?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The office is in Southampton.

Sir G. HAMILTON: Does the Southampton office cover the whole of the United Kingdom?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes.

Major BRAITHWAITE: Is this station at Southampton in the most favourable position for having these agricultural people stationed?

Sir J. GILMOUR: They are not agricultural; they are making maps for the Ordnance Survey.

Sir G. HAMILTON: 32.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total number employed by the Stationery Office in London in all departments in connection with Ordnance Survey and other maps in 1913–14 and in 1930–31, with the total salary and wages expenditure for the same period?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): Apart from a negligible fraction of the time of sales staff, no staff are or were employed by the Stationery Office in 1913–14 or in 1930–31 in connection with Ordnance Survey or other maps.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (PAY).

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: 22 and 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) if he will snake a statement as to the recent unrest in His Majesty's Navy, and what is the present position;
(2) whether it is his intention to set up a committee of inquiry into the recent events in His Majesty's Navy with a view to the avoidance of similar outbreaks in future, the redress of grievances, if any, and the restoration of public confidence?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Austen Chamberlain): It is not the intention to set up any further committee of inquiry. The representations made with regard to pay and pensions at the inquiries at the Home Ports and the representations made by the Commander-in-Chief at foreign stations have been the subject of careful consideration, and the Fleet Orders announcing the decisions arrived at as a result of those representations were published on Saturday last, and have no doubt been read by my hon. and gallant Friend. The ships of the Atlantic Fleet which have remained at the Home Ports in order to facilitate the holding of these inquiries will reassemble at an early date and continue their exercises. As I stated in this House on the 30th September (OFFICIAL REPORT, Column 340), the Board of Admiralty are carefully considering whether any, and if so what, changes are necessary in the methods at present open to men of the Royal Navy for making representations as to their service conditions.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Is there any evidence of outside subversive influences in regard to these outbreaks, and does my right hon. Friend realise that the great majority of the Navy remained loyal, and that unless discipline is enforced and mutiny and weakness is punished, you only discourage that loyalty?

Mr. SPEAKER: The House debated this question the other day.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Is that not a gross reflection on men who were defending their wives and children?

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: On a point of Order. Did I understand you to say, Mr. Speaker, that my question in regard to outside subversive influences was not in order?

Mr. SPEAKER: All that I said was that we had debated all this the other day, and I did not think we needed another one to-day.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: It was only a question, not a Debate, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. LONGDEN: 25.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the changed conditions of unemployment relief, he will give an undertaking that there will be a fortnightly publication of the numbers of persons receiving relief from or through the public assistance authorities throughout the country?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. E. D. Simon): So far as my Department is concerned statistics showing the numbers of persons receiving relief from the public assistance authorities are published quarterly, and at present my right hon. Friend sees no sufficient reason for more frequent publication.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

STABILISATION OF THE POUND.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give a day for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood):
That, in the opinion of the House, it is not desirable to stabilise the value of the pound until the balance of trade has been demonstrably restored by natural means, and then only at the free exchange value of sterling at that time.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid it is impossible to afford time for this Motion, and in any case such a discussion at present would be premature.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this question of the premature pegging of the pound on the Consolidated Fund Bill to-morrow.

Mr. MORLEY: 30.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what value the Government proposes to undertake the stabilisation of the pound?

Major ELLIOT: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) on the 28th September.

Mr. THURTLE: May we take it that in this case, in accordance with precedent, the Government will not do anything at all without the permission of the Bank of England?

BRITISH TREASURY CREDITS (UNITED STATES AND FRANCE).

Mr. LONGDEN: 31.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate cost to date to the State of the loans from France and America on account of the crisis?

Major ELLIOT: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Hoffman) on the 28th September. Since that date interest amounting to £23,000 has been paid on maturing bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — POTATO INDUSTRY (COLORADO BEETLE).

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the rapid spread of the Colorado Beetle in France towards the Channel coast; and what action he proposes to take for the safety of our potato crops from this serious danger?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the situation which has caused me much anxiety. I am advised that it demands drastic measures, and I propose within the next few days to make an Order under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts to the following effect, namely, to prohibit totally as from the 15th March next, the entry of potatoes grown anywhere in France, and of nursery stock and living plants grown within 200 kilometres of any place where the Colorado Beetle is known to exist; and to prohibit, for the period from the 15th March to the 14th October in each year, the entry of raw vegetables grown within the same distance from any such place.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RAILWAY VOUCHERS).

Mr. T. KENNEDY: (by Private Notice) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what arrangements have been made in regard to the use by Members of their railway vouchers in the event of the Dissolution of Parliament?

Major ELLIOT: The following arrangements have been made, and I would ask hon. Members to co-operate as closely as possible with the authorities of the House in securing their observance:

1. A Member may, if necessary, use one voucher for the single journey to his constituency immediately after the Dissolution. (Where, of course, a Member holds the return half of a ticket entitling him to return to his constituency, the use of a further voucher will not be necessary.)
2. A Member will retain possession of his current book of vouchers and will be at liberty to commence using them, as before, immediately on re-election.
3. A Member will not use any vouchers during the period between the use of the special voucher under No. 1 above and his re-election.
4. A Member defeated at the poll will return his book of vouchers immediately after the declaration of the poll.
5. A Member in possession of a book of vouchers and not seeking re-election may retain one voucher for use as under No. 1 above and will return the remainder of his book to the Fees Office.
6. A Member will be asked to reimburse the amount of any fares covered by vouchers the use of which is not in accordance with the above provisions.

Mr. ALEXANDER: In view of the very detailed announcement made by the Financial Secretary, perhaps the Prime Minister can now tell us the date of the Election?

Oral Answers to Questions — DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

PRIME MINISTER'S ANNOUNCEMENT.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I shall he glad if the Prime Minister will kindly tell us how far he proposes to go with business to-day, and, if possible, what is the remaining business; also, can he now tell us the date of the Election?

The PRIME MINISTER: The outstanding business is as follows: To-day, it is desired to obtain the remaining stages of the Foodstuffs (Prevention of Exploitation) Bill and of the Sunday Performances (Temporary Regulation) Bill; the Motion to carry over the London Passenger Transport Bill until
the next Session of Parliament, and the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill. The Government hope that it will be possible to obtain this business by a reasonable hour. Then to-morrow we shall meet at the usual time, 2.45 p.m., and I hope conclude the remaining business before the House, and, when the Measures which I have mentioned have been passed in another place, there will he a Royal Commission to give the Royal Assent to the Acts passed by both Houses, and the present Session will be terminated by Prorogation.
I should add that I had an audience with His Majesty this morning and asked for a Dissolution. His Majesty empowers me to announce that he has consented.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Surely the Prime Minister recognises that it will be for the convenience of all parties if, having announced the Royal authority for the Dissolution, he could give us the date of the Election or the Dissolution.

The PRIME MINISTER: That depends on bow we get the business through, but I hope that the Dissolution will be to-morrow. I am sorry that I cannot carry in my mind the time-table, but, if it is to-morrow, the Election will be on the 27th October, I think—that is, this day three weeks.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the House will be called to-morrow by Black Rod and that the House will be dissolved while sitting, or will the usual procedure be followed of the Proclamation of the Dissolution coming after the House has risen?

The PRIME MINISTER: There will be exactly the usual procedure.

Mr. MORRIS: In view of the controversial nature of the Sunday Performance (Temporary Regulation) Bill, will the Prime Minister carry out his undertaking and drop the Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of any undertaking. This is merely the preliminary. This Bill will last for only 12 months in order to give everybody the opportunity of reconsidering the Bill that was introduced previously and which was full of controversial matter. I do hope that the House will allow this Bill to go through, because there are, I
am told, at least 60 prosecutions pending. All these will have to be heard, the courts will be blocked by them, and so on, and fines will be imposed; they may be remitted, I hope, but the expenses cannot be remitted. I do hope, therefore, that the House will allow the Measure to go through.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. PERRY:
6. "To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if his attention has been called to the increase of 20 per cent. imposed on the sea freights of goods shipped from the ports of Rotterdam, Amsterdam, and Harlingen to London by various London shipping companies as from the 28th September, 1931; and whether these increased charges to the importer will be considered by the Government under the Food Prices Bill now before Parliament.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: I wish to ask if we can have a reply to the question standing in the name of the hen. Member for Kettering (Mr. Perry), as it has some bearing on one of the Bills which will be under discussion later.

Mr. SPEAKER: No. We cannot go back.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Ardrossan Harbour Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Fourth Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES' REPORTS.

Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

EAST AFRICA.

Report from the Joint Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — FOODSTUFFS (PREVENTION OF EXPLOITATION) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Power to make regulations as to Foodstuffs.)

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out from the word "that" to the word "there" in line 8.
It will be difficult in the excitement caused by the announcement of the election to bring the Committee back to a consideration of such matters as we have to discuss to-day, but it is very essential that it should be done. The effect of my Amendment would be to make the Clause read:
If it appears to the Board of Trade that there is or is likely to arise in Great Britain
and so on. This Amendment is moved in order to get an answer to a very important point raised on the Second Reading, to which I received no adequate answer last night: Will it be open to any trader against whom action is taken to apply to the Courts for an injunction to suspend or prohibit the operation of a Regulation controlling the price of supplies on the ground that the facts on which the Regulation is founded have not been proved or are untrue? On the Second Reading, I said there had already been certain cases of difficulty in regard to Government Regulations and Orders based upon Acts in which appeared phraseology such as appears in this Bill—"If it appears" to the Minister concerned. There has been considerable difficulty in getting Regulations operative, because of action taken in the Courts with a view to having them declared to be ultra vires. We ought to have proper legal advice on this point, either from a Law Officer of the Crown, or from the President of the Board of Trade based upon legal advice he has received.
The second reason why this Amendment is moved is that we still want to know, and especially in view of the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary
last night, what is meant by the words "the present financial situation." All that he replied to my question was that those words mean the present financial situation. I want to know what will be "the present financial situation" when any case is taken into court, what will be the intepretation of the Statute. I still think we ought to have the view of one of the Law Officers on this point. In the short time available for the consideration of the Bill I have been unable to get any high legal opinion upon it. The point has nevertheless been raised, and it might well be argued that "the present financial situation" could be confined to the financial situation on the day fixed for the Bill to come into operation. If that is not so, we ought to have an authoritative statement about it.
In any case, this Bill is for a limited period, for six months. Suppose that the financial situation does not improve. What is proposed then? Is it proposed to bring forward an entirely new enactment or to extend this one, and, if so, how are the words "the present financial situation" going to be applied in any specific case taken into court? Surely this is a matter which ought to be made clear beyond peradventure at this stage, so that after the Bill is operative there ought to be no opportunities for it to be made the subject of litigation in the courts owing to loose wording. In view of the announcement made to-day I wish to help to dispose of the business as soon as possible, and I do not want to take up time by repeating at length what I argued on the Second Reading on this point, but I consider that it is a vital point. My questions are: What will be the real position of a citizen who is summoned; will he be able to appeal to the courts to say that the regulation is ultra vires if it is left like this; and what is likely to be the exact interpretation placed by the courts upon the words "the present financial situation"?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The right hon. Gentleman has put very clearly and precisely two points which ought to be put and which ought to be answered. He asks, first, what would be the legal position of a subject who wished to challenge a regulation as being ultra vires. He asks whether a citizen could
claim an injunction. I am advised that he could not obtain an injunction, but that in a case of this kind an application for a mandamus would be the correct form of procedure. The right hon. Gentleman will see that the words are, "if it appears to the Board of Trade," and that does mean that the Board of Trade have the duty of determining whether, in their opinion, there is a case of exploitation. If there is a case of exploitation, then the Board of Trade are entitled to make a regulation. In deciding whether the Board were justified or not in the action which they took, I think the court would have regard to this—I think this has been held to be so many times—that it will be a question of whether the Board had exercised in a proper and bona fide way the duty of determining and expressing their opinion. I think that was the case raised a good many times during the consideration of the Consumers' Council Bill, and that was the answer given then, and I am bound to say that, in law, it is a perfectly correct answer.
The next point the right hon. Gentleman raised was what was the correct definition of "the present financial situation," and whether those were the right words to use in the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was anxious to know whether those words confined the Clause to a situation existing on the actual date on which the Bill became law. That point was carefully considered when the Bill was drafted, and I am advised that, without a shadow of doubt, the present financial situation means the situation which exists during the currency of the Act. If hon. Members read the Act to-morrow morning, it will be the present financial situation to-morrow morning. If they read the Act this day three months it will be the situation which exists this day three months. There is a parallel case which arose in War time in regard to the definition of the term "the present War," which meant during the currency of that particular War. In this Bill, the present financial situation means the situation existing at any given date during the currency of the Act.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Am I to understand that "exploiting the present financial situation" means the situation which
has arisen since we went off the Gold Standard? If we return to the Gold Standard and exploitation takes place, will it be possible to deal with that situation under this Bill?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I must say that I think it would be most improper to take any steps of that kind by regulation. This Bill deals with the existing abnormal situation arising from the fluctuation of the exchange. The Bill is designed to operate for a limited period during the time when the exchange may be in a state of fluctuation. I do not know what may be the future of our exchange, or when we may get a stable exchange, but this is an emergency Measure to meet an emergency situation, and that is why the operation of the Bill has been limited to a period of six months. I think I have now disposed of the three questions which have been put to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander).

Mr. STRAUSS: I think it is clear, after the Debate which took place yesterday, that the powers which the President of the Board of Trade is taking in this Bill are much too limited. If the particular sentence, the omission of which we are discussing, is left in, the powers provided in the Clause will be completely stultified. I think it is plain from the Debate that has already taken place that there are two courses of action which it may be necessary to take. The first is in the case of profiteering. Apparently, the only case in which the President of the Board of Trade thinks it will be necessary to intervene is that of a particular trader, or group of traders, who are not playing the game, and who, contrary to the majority of traders, are acting in a way which may be unduly profitable to themselves, and opposed to the general interests of the community. I suggest that if a trader is so unpatriotic, whether he be a wholesale or a retail trader, as to refuse to play the game, he can get out of his difficulties by applying for a mandamus against the Board of Trade. Therefore, as far as profiteering is concerned, this Clause completely stultifies the only line of action which the President of the Board of Trade contemplates. In this Clause, there are any number of opportunities for lawyers to argue the
case that the regulation is ultra vires. I would like to call attention to the wording of Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 which reads:
If it appears to the Board of Trade that by reason of the action of any persons in exploiting the present financial situation.
After the action has taken place, surely regulations issued by the Board of Trade would be too late. Actions may have taken place on the part of dealers which might create a shortage. If this Clause remains unamended the Board of Trade cannot act until after the action has taken place, and consequently it is very necessary that the Board of Trade should be able to make regulations before the action has taken place. It is no good closing the stable door after the horse has been stolen. In my opinion, if hon. Members wish to make this Bill effective, those words should be omitted. The other purpose of the Bill is to prevent a shortage. The only means suggested to prevent a shortage is to divert the food supplies in particular directions, and that is the remedy suggested by the President of the Board of Trade.
I do not know how that point is to be dealt with, because the most probable cause of a shortage of food will be some extraneous action over which no one in this country has any control. It may be due to world chaos caused by the dislocation of international trade. This is a point which I put in the discussion yesterday. We must visualise the possibility that, on account of a dislocation which does not exist to any great extent at the moment, but which might conceivably exist in a greater degree during the next few months, the exchanges might be so disorganised that it might be difficult for the dealer to cover his risk between the purchase of the goods and the time he is able to sell them in sterling in London. The dealer might say that, in those circumstances, it would not be worth his while carrying out the deal, because he might be involved in great losses against which he could not insure.
Again, quite possibly the exporter in a foreign country might be unwilling, in view of the circumstances which might exist, to enter into deals in sterling, and in such circumstances we might conceivably get a temporary shortage of food; and during the election, when wild state-
ments are made on all sides, there might be such a turmoil or fear in the exchange markets of the world that that possibility might eventuate during the next month. Such a shortage would not be caused by anybody's exploitation; nobody would be exploiting the financial situation at all; and yet that situation might arise. But the Board of Trade, if these words remain in the Bill, would be unable to take any action whatsoever to remedy that situation, because it had not been caused by anybody's exploitation. Therefore, I say that, if the President of the Board of Trade is really serious in attempting to deal with the possibilities that may arise, he must take these words out, because, as far as I can see, if they remain, the Board will be completely stultified. I can understand that the right hon. Gentleman is working in complete harmony and co-operation with the trade, because there is nothing in the Bill which could possibly frighten the trade in any circumstances; but, if these words are left in, they will certainly frighten those of us who want to see food supplies assured during the next six months, and the Bill will scarcely be worth the paper on which it is printed.

Mr. EDE: The President of the Board of Trade, in the course of his reply to my right hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, drew an analogy between t he phrase "the present war," which was used in a good many Acts during the Great War, and the words in this Bill, "the present financial situation." Might I suggest to him, however, that there is no similarity at all between the two phrases? If a similar phrase had been used in those earlier Acts, it would have been "the present military situation," and the military situation, obviously, fluctuated from day to day as the person who was watching it saw it.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not know whether my analogy was right, but as to the legal interpretation I am advised that there is no possible doubt.

Mr. EDE: Nevertheless, I think the right hon. Gentleman wants words that are absolutely free from doubt—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is why, when drafting the Bill, and since the question was raised yesterday, I took the highest advice, it being my duty, on a matter of interpretation, to give the
House an authoritative opinion; and T am advised that these words are exactly correct.

Mr. EDE: Might I suggest that more analogous to the phrase mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman would have been some such words as "the present monetary crisis," or "the present currency crisis," or "the present monetary emergency," or "the present currency emergency," as the case might be? That is the same form of continuation as the phrase "the present war," whereas the form of words now used is exactly analogous to the phrase "the present military situation." May I remind the right hon. Gentleman, also, that the use of the phrase "the present war" involved a further Act of Parliament to determine when "the present war" came to an end, and it was decided by Act of Parliament that "the present war," as mentioned in those various Acts, came to an end, not on the 11th November, 1918, but on some date very much later—I believe some day in, June, 1921, nearly three years after the event.
I should also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that the word "action" is sufficient. May not the difficulties at which this Bill is aimed be caused by the inaction of somebody—by persons merely taking no action at all? Suppose that an, importer goes out of business. Suppose that he says, "I am not going on with the business. I have already made enough, and, if I go on a little longer, I shall be found out and all the powers of this Act will be brought against me. It is true that I have made several hundred thousand pounds, and could only be fined £100, but, having made money, I am not anxious to lose any of it." I suggest that some word to cover mere inaction ought to be included.
Then, what does the word "exploitation" mean? It is a word that I never use myself. I have heard many of my hon. Friends use the word, and have often asked myself what it means. I took the trouble to look it up in Murray's Dictionary, and I find that it gives in inverted commas the use which I presume the right hon. Gentleman means it to have, showing that it regards it as a slang phrase, as not being good English at all; and it does not give a single
example of it prior to the early nineteenth century.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I believe that a, very good example of it is to be found in "Labour and the Nation."

Mr. EDE: I am not at all sure that the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) would feel that he could ask the Courts, at any rate during the jurisdiction of the right hon. Gentleman at the Board of Trade, to accept "Labour and the Nation" as the interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman's meaning. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he can hardly shelter behind that, because I find that the first meaning of the word was:
to accomplish, achieve, execute, perform; to fight (a battle),
and the example given in Murray's Dictionary is taken from a play of the year 1500, called "Melusine":
I ordayne the bataill to be to-morrow exploited.
In view of what we heard at the end of Question Time to-day, it appears to be a very apposite word to use. The Poet Laureate Skelton used the word in this sense:
To exployte the man owte of the mone,
which suggests to one's mind the endeavours to exploit someone known as "Slippery Sam" out of the Cabinet. But when we get down to the final meaning, the fourth which is given—and it is given in inverted commas—we find that it is:
To work (a mine, etc.); to turn to industrial account (natural resources);
and, by a transferred meaning,
To utilise for one's own ends, treat selfishly as mere workable material (persons, etc.).
It does not appear to give any idea that it means "to treat selfishly" a situation. I suggest that it is a loose word altogether. The only example given is from the "Westminster Review" of July, 1888:
An association of capitalist share-holders exploiting their wage-paid labourers.
Apparently it was only about 40 years ago that the slang meaning which the right hon. Gentleman has put into this word came into being. This provision is very loosely worded if the right hon. Gentleman desires to use it at all, if the
terrible pictures that were painted of what was going to happen when we went off the Gold Standard were accurate. The notes for Conservative speakers spoke of pound notes being only of use as pipe-lighting spills. If that kind of thing is going to happen—and I have heard no denial of it yet from the Government benches—we want something far more solid, far more substantial, than the words in this phrase which my right hon. Friend has moved to leave out. I assume that everyone quite genuinely desires, no matter where he may place the responsibility for this crisis, to be assured that nobody is going to turn a national emergency to private profit, and that we are not going to have a set of gold-standard profiteers in the same way that we had a number of War profiteers. We may be sure of this, that, if we do have such a situation, the powers of this Bill will not check public opinion from dealing directly and drastically with the situation. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us a form of words which cannot be disputed, and which will make it quite plain that the House intends that this situation shall be most drastically dealt with.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: I feel that my hon. Friend has raised a point of very great importance, and I think we should have from the President of the Board of Trade a legal interpretation of the word "exploit." I do not know whether this term has, in fact, ever been determined in the courts, but we are fortunate enough to have the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Smith Nottingham (Mr. Knight) here. With his great knowledge, I have no doubt he will be able to help the right hon. Gentleman out if he is in any difficulty. Unless this word has actually been determined in the courts and has a specific legal meaning, it seems to me that the whole Clause is rendered of very little use. For instance,
If it appears to the Board of Trade that by reason of the action of any persons in exploiting the present financial situation.
There are many on these benches who believe that the right hon. Gentleman, and the Conservative party generally, have been exploiting the present financial situation. That is a use of the word in which its meaning is commonly under-
stood. If, for instance, there was likely to be an unreasonable increase in prices by reason of the action of any persons exploiting the financial crisis, we might very well argue that, if the right hon. Gentleman should unfortunately be a member of the Government which exploits the present situation and puts on food taxes, thereby bringing about an increase of price, we ought to be able to put him in the dock and have him fined in accordance with the later provisions of the Bill. It is extremely important, if we are going to pretend to deal with this problem, if this is not merely political eyewash, that we should have some words which specifically bear the meaning that, if anyone unreasonably raises prices, the public should be protected. We ought not to pass this Clause without having some indication as to the -exact legal meaning of the word "exploit."

Mr. HOFFMAN: I should like these words to come out, because they limit the powers of the President of the Board of Trade. I am very anxious to give him all the powers I possibly can to deal with what I am convinced is going to be a very serious situation, but these words limit the position. They say that no action can be taken by the Board of Trade unless there is exploitation. What is meant by that? Is a rise in price exploitation, because prices are rising now? How is he going to find out whether those prices have risen legitimately and properly unless he has had an investigation? I have had it brought to my notice today, in the costume trade, that furred collars for coats are being held up because of exchange difficulties, and the goods cannot be made because of the uncertainty about price. The same thing is happening even in the food trade. A trader told me yesterday that he had to order a ton of sugar on the market. He did not know what the price was. The traveller could not tell him. He simply had to take his chance. The same thing has happened with reference to potatoes. They are already advancing in price, and, if the French potatoes are to be excluded because the Colorado beetle is advancing on the Channel ports, they are going to rise considerably higher. There is already scarcity in the country because of potato disease.
These are all matters that the right hon. Gentleman is bound to take into consideration. Are all these people exploiting the present situation or not? Prices are rising. Is that because of exploitation? We do not know. I take it that, if these words are kept in, the right hon. Gentleman will have to adopt an inquisitorial inquiry. He will have to nose round, like a Nosey Parker, into the business of every tradesman to find out whether there is exploitation or not. If these words are taken out of the Bill, it is quite enough for him to say, "I can see that there is going to be a shortage of food or that there are rising prices on every hand. The Board of Trade must take action to deal with the situation in the interests of the people as a whole." I am very anxious to give him all the powers that he can possibly ask for. I would almost allow him to be a Mussolini. He has the presence of one. I would almost give him autocratic powers in this direction if he would use them, as I think even yet they will have to be used.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment I propose to call is that in the name of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. R. A. Taylor), to leave out paragraph (a).

Mr. ALEXANDER: On a point of Order. We know that the selection of Amendments lies with the Chair, but I would point out that the decision that you, Sir, have just announced prevents us from discussing in Committee the question of extending to other commodities than foodstuffs the powers that are given under the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: I did not call the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, because, after very careful consideration, I was obliged to come to the conclusion that it was out of order. The right hon. Gentleman, I see, has observed that it does not come within the Title, and he is proposing to amend the Title. If he refers to the authorities on the subject, he will find that an Amendment of this kind cannot be moved unless it deals with a matter which is strictly relevant to the matter in the Bill and unless there is an Instruction moved before the House goes into Committee. It is quite
clear that such things as clothing and fuel are not matters that are relevant to foodstuffs.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I submit that this is a very serious decision as affecting the community, because it must be remembered that this is hasty legislation. It is being pushed through at great speed, with very little notice, and yet it purports to deal with a danger to the community—the present financial situation. Yet it is confined to one Section. The only thing we can do in the very short time left to us is to move that it includes other matters and I submit that it would not be at all unreasonable that we should debate the question of extending control to other commodities with a view to preventing exploitation and profiteering.

4.0 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: I have every sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties in meeting rather abstruse points of this kind which sometimes arise, but there is a special Standing Order dealing with the matter, and the Standing Orders and Rules of Procedure of the House are for the benefit of the House generally, and must be observed strictly. The right hon. Gentleman has exhausted his opportunity in not moving an Instruction before the Committee stage.

Mr. ALEXANDER: That is the whole point when dealing with legislation of this kind. The House did not get this Bill until Friday, and there was very little time to consider the whole thing. We are not being treated fairly in the matter.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Bill was available on Thursday morning, and all that the right hon. Gentleman had got to do on Thursday afternoon was to read the Title of the Bill, which is printed in very large type in the first five lines. If he wished to raise this point, he should have moved an Instruction.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity, if I wanted to use it, of saying that if he had sufficient time to examine the Bill in order to put down his Amendments, he had sufficient opportunity at the same time to consider whether his
Amendments were in order or not. But, however desirous he or other right hon. Gentlemen or hon. Gentlemen may be to discuss certain matters, I am afraid I should not be doing my duty to the Chair if I allowed Amendments of this kind.

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: Last night in the Debate I drew attention to curtain things with regard to what might be determined as foodstuffs. You may take foodstuffs as being raw material for food. Take the case of fuel for heating which is required for making tinned foods. It is a question of costs coming into the commodities, and unless you are going to protect people, then this Bill is only so much election eye-wash.

The CHAIRMAN: The Ruling which I have given has been given after a very full consideration, and these rather abstruse arguments which the hon. Member is bringing forward in dispute of my Ruling really cannot be allowed.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, to leave out paragraph (a).
One of the main reasons why I put this Amendment forward is that in the Second Reading Debate the President of the Board of Trade was extremely nebulous with regard to the powers which were to be exercised by the persons referred to in this Sub-section. Before the Committee assents to the principle involved in this paragraph, we ought to know exactly who are these persons, or organisations, or bodies of persons, on whom the President proposes to "confer or impose" very great powers. I assume from what he said the other day that the bodies referred to will be organisations of traders, organisations which exist mainly for the purpose of protecting the special interests of a group of traders engaged in a particular branch or trade. Does he, for instance, propose to confer upon the organisation representing the wholesale food importers any special powers to fix prices, or to enter into any agreement with each other, or to exercise any control over supplies which they may pass to particular persons? Does he propose to bring in the organisation representing the wholesale distributors, those who buy from the importers and sell to the smaller retailers in the provincial towns
as well as the organisations representing those engaged in retail trade? If he does propose to confer upon these persons wide powers in regard to the withholding of supplies and other matters, this raises an extremely dangerous principle, and creates possibilities of preferential treatment that ought to be very seriously considered before Parliament agrees to confer any such powers upon traders' organisations.
The Committee will well remember the Report of the Royal Commission on Food Prices and the action which had been taken by certain organisations in withholding supplies from retailers who had sold their products. The particular case to which my memory takes me was in regard to the price of bread, where supplies of flour were being withheld under a term of contract between the millers and the bakers, and where the person who was selling bread at a lower price than the price agreed upon by the master bakers was not able to secure any supplies of flour. I am by no means certain that these bodies are capable of interpreting the whole of the duties which may be laid upon them in such a way as to serve the public interest. I would not for a moment suggest that there are not many men connected with those organisations who will take a wise, reasonable and honourable view of their responsibilities. But it is an extremely dangerous thing to give any body of persons outside this House the right to penalise competitors in the same line of business with whom they may have these agreements, and I would like to hear more as to exactly who these bodies are before we part with this paragraph.
Further, I think that we are entitled to ask the President of the Board of Trade to make some statement to the Committee as to the present position with regard to the stocks of various foods held in this country. Can he, for instance, tell us what are the stocks of imported meat in cold storage? Can he tell us what are the existing stocks of wheat, flour, butter, bacon, cheese, margarine and so on? These are questions of very great importance, because I understand that these powers are being sought to deal with the possibilities which may arise if we have a serious shortage of foodstocks in this country. The present crisis with which this country and the
world generally are faced, is not a crisis due to a scarcity of foodstuffs or other things; indeed, to some extent it has been brought about by a glut of commodities, and the difficulty has been to relate these huge stocks to the consumptive power of the people. I cannot escape the conclusion that that portion of the Bill which deals with the shortage, particularly in relation to foodstuffs, is, to some extent, designed to perpetuate that feeling of panic which has been developed and to some extent generated by the members of the Conservative party so as to create a public psychology in which they can secure the glamour of a patriotic appeal to the country in order that the country may be willing to accept things at which, in normal times, its reason would revolt.
Therefore, we are entitled to ask for some indication from the Government, when they are proposing to confer powers like these upon bodies outside Parliament, what stocks exist, what is the national position, and what justification is there for any suggestion that we are approaching, or likely to approach, a condition of shortage with regard to foodstuffs? I understand, though I am not sure whether my information is correct, that there are some five months' supplies of imported meat in cold storage, and if there is any rise in the price of commodities of this kind where there are huge stocks in the country bought before there was any rise in price, then we are entitled to ask the Government to take far more drastic powers to protect consumers than they are proposing to take in this Bill. With regard to the supplies that may have to be imported on which an increased price may have to be paid by reason of the change in the rates of exchange, that, of course, is a different matter, but if there are huge stocks of foodstuffs accumulated in this country, we want some definite power to be given to the Government to prevent the sale of those stocks during the next few months at prices which are unreasonable in relation to the prices paid for them at the time of importation.
For instance, will this Bill give power to fix prices, to decide what is a fair price? Suppose there is a profiteering ramp by forces external to this country. Many of the supplies which come into Great Britain are subject to great
speculative operations by people resident outside this country, and you may have a situation which demands that the State should be able to make large purchases and, if necessary, take the same powers as the French Government did not only to make purchases by the State, but, if necessary, so as to break down profiteering, to open shops to sell goods direct to the people, if such a situation did develop. We want to know whether this Bill will give the Government power to engage in that sort of operations and to lay down what is a fair price for staple commodities?
May I ask whether or not local authorities will be able to issue a fair price list for foodstuffs under the terms of this Bill, or whether the persons on whom it is proposed to confer powers, I presume to regulate prices and to take action against people who violate an undertaking of the trade, will publish to the public a list of prices which ought not to be exceeded? Therefore, I think we are entitled to say that, so far as we can see at present, the provisions of this Bill do not enable the Government to meet the emergencies which may arise, and that the powers are so limited that this is a mere political window-dressing device on the eve of the General Election, rather than a real determination by the Government to use the powers which already exist in the Emergency Powers Act properly to protect the people from any of the developments which may come out of this crisis.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Gentleman has raised several rather constructive points. The last was that we ought to exercise the powers contained in the Emergency Powers Act, but, as I explained to the House yesterday, the Emergency Powers Act does not apply to the present situation. What the Bill does is to give us the power to use exactly those powers as if the Emergency Powers Act were enacted.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the powers in this Bill give the State the power to purchase in bulk and to import in bulk?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I was going to deal with the hon. Gentleman's points one by one. He asked why we did not use powers under the Emergency Powers Act. The answer is because it
would be illegal to do so. The Bill is introduced to give us exactly the powers which he says we ought to possess. He said that obviously nothing could be done and that everything was camouflage. The real proof of success is the extraordinary stability of prices during the last fortnight. That, I think, is a complete answer to that point.

Mr. STRAUSS: The Bill was not in force then.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Gentleman keeps on presenting to the House a picture—it bears no sort of relation to facts—that everybody thinks that there is going to be an acute shortage of supplies, because no one is going to dare to trade. If hon. Gentlemen opposite come back to office, I do not think that a situation quite as bad as that would arise. There is not the faintest prospect that people are going to refuse to buy and sell in this country. It really seems to be quite irrelevant.

Mr. STRAUSS: I do not think that that is a true account of what I said. My point was that we were just as likely, if not more likely, to have a shortage of food from external causes—not through the fault of anybody in this country—as by anyone in this country exploiting the situation, and we are making no provision in the Bill to deal with any situation which arises externally.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it is simply nonsense to suggest, when there are great stocks of foodstuffs available in the world, that none of those stocks are going to come forward. Does the hon. Gentleman really mean that with about a year's supply of wheat hanging over the market wheat dealers are going to hold off. It bears so little relation to the facts that if I were to come down to the House and say that the world is suffering from an excess production of many commodities, and there is such a risk that none of those commodities will come on to the market that I intend to set up a great State import board for fear we should suffer from starvation in a world which hon. Gentlemen opposite have often said is suffering in a strange way from glut, really I think the House would laugh me out of court, and they would be perfectly right in doing so. No one would be quicker than hon. Members
opposite to say, "Why occupy the House of Commons in discussing such a stupid Measure as that?" and I think that they would be quite right.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Mr. R. A. Taylor) really raised this matter in order to ask about the delegation of powers. There is not a delegation of discretion. The decision as to whether there is or is not a case of exploitation on which action is to be taken is a decision of the Board of Trade. That cannot be delegated to anybody. That is my decision. The power to delegate is a power to delegate executive action, and that must exist. I cannot say to whom such power will necessarily be delegated. It may be to the local officer of a Government Department—there are many of them in the country—and it may be to a local authority or to officials of a local authority. But what would be delegated to them would be executive action, to carry out the decision of the Board of Trade, and not a discretion to decide what action should be taken, which is the discretion vested in the Board of Trade. The hon. Gentleman said—yesterday I said I did not delegate my discretion at all—that he hoped that in any case it would not be delegated to a trade organisation. I think that that only arises in quite a different connection.
Somebody asked me, "What would you do supposing it was alleged that a particular grocer in a particular place was charging an unreasonable price?" The hon. Gentleman himself suggested that obviously you cannot go fixing the same prices everywhere. I agree. That is one of the difficulties. That is why, roughly, price-fixing is always an impossible thing to do, because circumstances vary so much and, as we found in the War, when we came down to a limited number of things and tried to fix prices, we had to fix on a margin to enable the most inefficient man to carry on. The result was that you fixed your prices far too high and your maximum price always became the minimum price, and a great many people who, if they had been left to carry on in proper competition, would have sold much cheaper, made an unnecessary amount of money. I think he is perfectly right in the criticism he made. You cannot fix prices to apply in Bond Street and Whitechapel
and so on. Equally, he said, you cannot fix a price for a great co-operative society or a great store which has a great turnover and which can carry on on a small margin of profit, and make it apply to some little shopkeeper with a very small turnover, and who is inefficient. I do not use the term offensively. I agree that you cannot do price-fixing in that sort of way. That is why it is always necessary to tackle this thing from the wholesale end.
But I said that supposing I received a complaint about a particular shop being unreasonable, I thought the natural thing to do would be to go to the trade federation of which that shop was a member and which had agreed to help and say, "Here is an allegation that one of your members is not playing the game, get on to it and take that action first." I think that that would be a reasonable thing to do. And so it is on the big wholesale scale. If I found that one wholesale dealer was not playing the game, I should try to act through the organisation of wholesalers, who are very anxious that everybody should play the game. I stated in the House yesterday that the bulk of them were playing the game, and that the mere threat to a man was quite enough to deal with the matter. The short answer is that discretion is not delegated to anybody. It is only executive action, and for that you must use whoever is the most proper person.
The hon. Member asked about stocks. Stocks, as he knows, must vary from commodity to commodity. I am perfectly satisfied, as I said, that there are ample stocks available, but that does not necessarily mean that those stocks are available in this country. He mentioned, for instance, meat, and asked if it was not a fact that there are several months' stocks of meat in this country? There are considerable stocks, I believe, of frozen mutton in this country, but he knows that when you pass from frozen meat to chilled meat the latter gets sold within 24, 25 or 26 days or whatever it is, of the animal being killed.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Except that when there is a surplus it is taken into cold storage and frozen.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: A surplus which degenerates. It is that which gives to the markets which are nearer in, like the Argentine, a great pull over certain other markets. It is as true of beef as it is of mutton. Frozen mutton has a happy habit, I believe, of de-coagulating satisfactorily when you unfreeze it, whereas frozen beef does not de-coagulate, and that is why chilled beef is better than frozen beef. In chilled meat you cannot have great stocks in the country, because they must come forward week by week. It is exactly the same with regard to Danish bacon or light cured bacon. You cannot have stocks in this country. The bacon has to come week by week in supply. Therefore, whether the particular commodities of which stocks are ordinarily available in this country are coming forward depends very much upon circumstances of this character. The hon. Member happened to mention butter. I can tell him about butter because I have been going into the question lately. The stocks of butter in cold store on 1st October were approximately 19,000 tons, and the ordinary consumption in a month is 32,000 tons. There, again, there merely being 19,000 tons, is nothing one need be anxious about, because butter from different parts of the world comes forward all the time. Therefore, you cannot lay down any hard and fast rule about stocks.
I can assure the hon. Member that I am keeping a very close watch on the stock position generally, and it is important that you should be careful, if you are attempting to adjust prices which are entirely outside your control, because unless the price is satisfactory, the seller may not send his goods forward. In conducting business—though I am not conducting it, I am in close association with the people who conduct it—you must realise that by trying to keep prices below what a buyer can reasonably expect to get, you may prevent supplies coming forward and put yourself in the position of creating a real shortage in the market. But as long as trade goes on through the normal channels and the ordinary course is pursued, I am sure that the country need have no alarm that there will be any shortage in the food coming forward. I think that disposes of all the points which the hon. Gentleman raised, and I am very glad that he
raised them, because it has given me an opportunity of making clear exactly what is meant.

Mr. ALEXANDER: We are getting on. We are getting information bit by bit, and that is why the Committee stage is so useful. We have got an answer to our question as to the application of powers which we were not able to get yesterday. I think that we are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. R. A. Taylor) for the case he put and the answer which he has elicited. But I am afraid that the reply of the President of the Board of Trade only goes to show that our fears as to this Bill being largely a bluff have been proved. It is clear now from the latter part of his answer that after all this great shout about taking the most drastic powers that have ever been taken, is really just a little bit of window dressing. What they propose to do is to say, "Well, we hope that you will be very good children, but, if anything goes wrong, I propose to write to the traders' association, and the traders' association will see whether this individual trader or that individual trader has or has not charged too much." If the traders' association is unable to persuade the poor unfortunate delinquent that he has been wrong or something of that kind, there may be some further consideration as to whether this person is or is not a person who ought to be indicted for a criminal offence. What a different complexion this puts upon a Bill which was heralded at the end of last week as being the most drastic Measure upon food that had ever been placed upon the Statute Book of this country. How it supports the case which we have already put, that probably it is only introduced into the House just for election purposes. I have been waiting to hear from the President of the Board of Trade, yesterday and today, what is the real explanation why the Emergency Powers Act has not been used. Yesterday and to-day he has told us that it was illegal to use it. Why is it illegal?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I consulted the Law Officers of the Crown. The reason why I ruin not using those powers is that there is not a national emergency within the meaning of that Act. I am not competent to explain the
matter, but I asked the Law Officers whether I could act under the Emergency Powers Act, and they said: "No. You must have a separate Bill giving you powers."

Mr. ALEXANDER: This is most interesting. The Bill is intended to deal with a situation brought about by the
action of any persons in exploiting the present financial situation,
and that in consequence there is likely to arise
any shortage of or any unreasonable increase in the price of any article of food or drink.
We have been harried on these benches because it is said that we did not recognise that there was a crisis. The crisis has not been sufficient to invoke the use of the powers of the Emergency Powers Act. The way the Government jump from foot to foot is most amusing. We have not yet got a real answer. We are informed by the President of the Board of Trade that he has taken the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, who have advised that the Emergency Powers Act cannot be invoked. Perhaps the Attorney-General will explain why the Emergency Powers Act cannot be invoked. We had been given to understand that if someone was acting in such a way as to prejudice the community, all that was needed was a threat from the President of the Board of Trade to bring into operation the Emergency Powers Act, and that that would be effective. Why cannot that be effective now?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): The Emergency Powers Act provides that:
If at any time it appears to His Majesty that any action has been taken or is immediately threatened by any persons or body of persons of such a nature and on so extensive a scale, etc.
When I was asked to advise the President of the Board of Trade, I said: "It is impossible to put those powers into force, unless you can say that the scale is extensive." You may want to deal with a small trader or a particular case of profiteering. Any lawyer will agree at once that it is impossible to do that under the Emergency Powers Act.

Mr. G. HARDIE: What has the scale and size of the emergency to be? What number of people or what amount of
goods are to be involved? If the goods are being sold at an unreasonable price, what amount is to be involved before action can be taken under the Emergency Powers Act, or under the present Bill?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The whole object in bringing in this Bill instead of relying upon the Emergency Powers Act is that you get out of the difficulty of having to define the scale. That is why I advised that the Emergency Powers Act was no good.

Mr. ALEXANDER: That demonstrates what we said yesterday, that this Bill is bluff, introduced for the purposes of the election. The Attorney-General says that he cannot advise the use of the Emergency Powers Act because the crisis is not of a sufficient scale.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I did not say that. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I said nothing about the magnitude of the crisis. I was dealing with the magnitude of the particular case of exploitation. You may have a case of exploitation, a gross case, but not on a big scale. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to stop that? If so, he cannot do it under the Emergency Powers Act.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I should have said that you could very well do it under the Emergency Powers Act. After all, that has been said in this House during the last three weeks, if the crisis through which we have been going is not sufficient to enable the Government, according to the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, to invoke the use of the Emergency Powers Act, then all the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been wind, with no substance in them. What they say now is that there is no prospect of any exploitation on a sufficient scale to justify the invoking of the Emergency Powers Act, yet the President of the Board of Trade says that it is necessary to introduce a Bill of a separate character with powers as drastic as those in the Emergency Powers Act. When we come to the explanation we find that all that they are going to do is to make representations to the trading organisation that a particular trader has been a bad
boy, and to ask them to communicate with him and see if they cannot persuade him to be a better boy in the future. Unless that has happened, no action will be taken. This Bill is a piece of pure window dressing for the election.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. HOFFMAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out paragraph (b).
My purpose in moving this Amendment is to get some explanation from the President of the Board of Trade as to the scope of the paragraph. The paragraph seems rather dreadful. It provides for trials, confiscations and other things. If, as the President of the Board of Trade says, the difficulty can be got over by merely making representation to the trading organisation, there is no need for these provisions with regard to trials by courts of summary jurisdiction, fines of £100, confiscation of profits and confiscation of articles. What need is there for these provisions if the trading association will put the matter right? I should like to know, in the event of a prosecution, who is to conduct the prosetion. Will it be the Board of Trade or the trading organisation or a common informer?
The President of the Board of Trade has said that he can get over his difficulties by going to the wholesale association or the retail traders' association, and saying that a certain person is not playing the game. That is all very well, but I would point out that the Food Council stated that they could not secure what they wanted. They came to the Government and said: "We think that too high a price is being charged for bread in London, and that bread within a certain period ought to have come down in price." They also stated that milk ought to have come down in price, at least for the period of one month. Because they had no powers to deal with it, they asked the Government for powers. Now, the President of the Board of Trade says that he can get over the difficulties by asking the traders to play the game. The difficulty has not been got over hitherto. A Commission was appointed to inquire into the meat trade and the prices charged, and they found it very difficult to get one of the Vestey brothers to give evidence or to answer questions. We are entitled to ask whether the President of the Board of Trade is going to
get powers to investigate books and to go into the thing from beginning to end. We are entitled to know that, before we consent to paragraph (b), which provides for heavy fines and confiscations.
Who are the persons who are to be prosecuted? In the case of a company, will it be the secretary of the company, or will it be the poor branch shop manager? There has been accumulating legislation, such as the Merchandise Marks Act and the Weights and Measures Act., under which the ordinary branch shop manager has to keep his eyes open to see that the law is obeyed not only by himself but by his assistants. He is a poorly paid person, as a rule. He merely works for a wage. He works under instructions from headquarters, or under instructions from a visiting inspector, who tells him what he is to do. Who is going to suffer all the pains and penalties if he has been acting under instructions? If a multiple firm is involved, will the firm be prosecuted, or will it be the branch manager or the shop assistant?

Mr. G. HARDIE: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment has asked who will be prosecuted. In the case of a company, who will be prosecuted and put into gaol? Upon whom will the penalty fall I Are you going to collect the directors or the shareholders and put them into gaol? It seems to me as a layman that this Bill has been drafted in a very loose manner. References are made in paragraph (b) to "persons guilty of an offence against the regulations." In view of the use of the word "persons," am I to understand that the Bill refers to the people immediately in charge of what is being done in the shop? They might apply to the individual who owns his own business, but when it comes to a multiple shop the case does not seem to be covered. Who are the persons that will be affected in the case of an offence by a company?

Mr. STRAUSS: As far as I can understand the Bill, the Board of Trade is empowered to make regulations after an act of exploitation has been done. Supposing there is a gross act of exploitation, something which may be very serious and which may cause a shortage of food. It. will be after the event that the regulations will be made; possibly some little time after. As I understand the Bill, it will be impossible
in those circumstances to bring the person or the persons concerned to court until after the regulations have been made. It will only be possible to bring the people to court after the damage has been done. That does not appear to me to be very helpful, and I hope the Attorney-General will be able to throw a little light upon it.

Mr. EDE: I want to deal with this question from the point of view of the penalties. Yesterday I suggested that the penalties are totally inadequate for these modern times, and I read from some old Statutes the kind of penalties which were then imposed. On further inquiry I find that even the courts leet, which existed before Parliament was instituted, had greater powers conferred upon them by the King for dealing with what was called forestalling and engrossing, or re-grating, than are proposed by this Bill. I want to ask the Attorney-General whether he thinks that a fine of £100 as a maximum for a first or second or third offence is adequate to deal with this kind of offence when trade is conducted on the scale it is to-day. Suppose one of the great meat importers makes a sight mistake of 1½d. or 2½d. in calculating what is a reasonable rise in price. In a few weeks he can make a profit which will make £100 a very small fraction of his illgotten gains. I presume the Attorney-General does not intend the Bill to be used for terrorising the small shopkeeper. When the previous Act was in force I was chairman of an urban council. We had one case brought before us. It was the case of a woman who kept a small shop in a cottage. It was alleged that she had over-charged ½d. for an ounce of pepper. We deliberated for two and a-quarter hours, and then came to the conclusion that she had done so and that she must refund the ½d. To our amazement she said that she had not change for a penny, and neither had the person who complained; so the clerk to the urban council had to go into his office and get two halfpennies. I suppose the Bill is not aimed at catching small fry like that, and I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Grimsby, who has a great knowledge on these matters—

Mr. WOMERSLEY: That is exactly what your Consumers' Council Bill sought to do.

Mr. EDE: I know that the Conservative party dwells in the past, but I did not know that it dwelt so much in the past as to worry about the Consumers' Council Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member who started this question was rather quick. I cannot allow a discussion on the Consumers' Council Bill to be developed.

Mr. EDE: That is all I was going to say; it was nothing more than fair comment on the interruption. I am quite sure that the Attorney-General intends to go for any really big people who commit an offence just as zealously as he will for any small shopkeeper. Therefore, I ask whether the penalties are anything like sufficient. Let me repeat the suggestion I made yesterday. Early in August, with the May Committee Report in my hands, I went to Land's End and thought the thing out in solitude. It seemed to raise the kind of issues which take men into different parties. I tried to see the thing through to the end. I did so, and I came to the conclusion that if one tried to effect the economies in the May Committee's Report at the expense of the unemployed you are going to have serious food riots during the winter, and most men who saw the thing through to the end came to the same conclusion.
In addition to the cuts, you have depreciated the pound. There is a fear of rising prices, or this Bill would not be before us, and we may have—I see no possibility of avoiding them in some districts—serious riots which may be beyond the power of the police to control, and which may result in the calling out of the military. If any of these food riots are provoked by offences under this Bill I think there should be power to deal effectively with the big people who may be at the back of any shortage or exploitation. I ask the Attorney-General to consider whether a fine of £100 or three months' imprisonment, or both together, with the forfeiture from the purchaser, as I take it, of the articles in which the exploitation has taken place is a really sufficient punishment, or will be sufficient evidence to the country of the good faith of the Government in this matter. I suggest that we are dealing with a subject that may be of the utmost importance to the stability of the
State during the coming winter and we ought not to allow this Bill to pass until we are assured that its provisions are an adequate safeguard against exploitation.

Mr. ALEXANDER: It may be convenient if I add one or two questions at this stage, and the Attorney-General can take them altogether. Probably the right hon. and learned Gentleman has seen some remarks I made yesterday. I want to put this specific case to him. If a company, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, is guilty of an offence and is prosecuted, some person is to be taken to court. You can indict a secretary or managing director, and actually send such a person to prison; but in this Bill you are adding other penalties. You are ordering the forfeiture of the goods of the company. You are also asking them to disgorge profits which are, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, excessive. I am not quite sure that the Board of Trade is sufficiently protected in matters of this kind. May you not get a civil action against the Board of Trade for any action they may take which has resulted in criminal proceedings?
Let me put another point to the Attorney-General. To any ordinary person reading this Clause it is clear that forfeiture is added as an extra penalty. It says:
Any articles in respect of which the offence was committed.
Does that mean that you are going to exact forfeiture from the person who has bought the article at much more than the proper price? Does forfeiture of the profit mean that the extra profit goes to the court authorities or to the Board of Trade; or is there a provision that if these extra profits have been made they shall be forfeited and refunded to the purchaser who has been defrauded? That is an important point. I should like an answer to the question of what protection there is for the Board of Trade against any civil action arising out of these cases, and whether the power of forfeiture means that you are prepared to give the court power to forfeit the whole of the stock of the man who has been selling at an undue profit. That would be an extraordinary action to take. Also whether a forefeiture of the profits in respect of a transaction for which a person has been found guilty, is to be a
repayment to the person who in the opinion of that decision, has been defrauded.

5.0 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have been asked a good many questions, and I hope I shall remember them all; if not, hon. Members will remind me. First, as to the structure of the Clause. It is borrowed almost verbatim from Subsection (3) of Section 2, of the Emergency Powers Act. The words are precisely the same until you get to the words in line 16:
Or of any profit accruing to the person.
which are different. To the end the paragraph is different. I must explain to the Committee again the whole object of the Bill; and many of the questions will be answered by a consideration of that fact. The Emergency Powers Act was passed in order to deal with trouble on a very extensive scale which threatened to deprive the community of the essentials of life. When I was asked to consider the possibility of exploitation on the part of someone, which we all hope will not occur, and so far there is no evidence that it will occur, and whether the Emergency Powers Act gives us adequate powers there is no lawyer in the land who would have hesitated about the answer. The answer which I felt bound to give was that the Emergency Powers Act did not give us the powers which were needed. Unless you have exploitation on an extensive scale and a threat of a deprivation of the essentials of life you cannot act. Consequently, we had to bring in this Bill, which enables us to deal with cases on a much smaller scale, even with individual cases. I felt, although I hope none of these powers will be necessary and that there will be no exploitation, that it would be foolish to separate unless we had adequate powers to deal with such a threat if it took place. If you are to do that you must have a penalty Clause. The hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Hoffman) has completely misunderstood what the President of the Board of Trade said. My right hon. Friend said that, if there was trouble in a particular case he would probably go to the trade organisation. That seems to me an eminently sensible thing to do. At the same time we cannot rest content with that. My right hon. Friend may not be able to get a satisfactory dealing with the case. He must arm himself with
powers. Then I am asked "What do you want these powers for?" The President of the Board of Trade said, "In the first instance I shall go to the trade association, but if I cannot settle it in that way I shall not hesitate to use the powers under the, Act." It is necessary, therefore, to be provided with powers, and drastic powers, in order to deal with the situation.
I was asked, next, who prosecutes and who is to be prosecuted? Both those questions will depend on the regulations to be made. It will be perfectly proper for the regulations themselves to define who that would be. In normal eases the prosecution would be conducted by someone acting on behalf of the Board of Trade. The regulations themselves would authorise the Board of Trade to appoint various officers, or officers of municipalities up and down the country might undertake prosecutions. In more serious cases—I have always tried to carry out this idea in my administration of the law in the last two years—a different procedure would be adopted. It is absolutely inexcusable for the law to hit the small man and miss the large, and if I have the administration of the law I shall always hit at the large man. In serious cases of that sort I have no doubt that I should myself be called in to prosecute. That answers the question as to who would prosecute.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Does that answer mean that there will be no common informer prosecutions, that it will be impossible for an ordinary citizen to act the part of the common informer?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I hope to goodness we shall have nothing to do with the common informer; the less we have to do with him the better. The next question is, who is to be prosecuted? I am aware of the great hardship possible in the case of some of these small people, the managers of small shops. We all know that they are liable to be called over the coals for doing all sorts of things which in fact they are required to do. The right way to administer the law is not to try to hit these people, but to hit those who tell them that they have to break the law. So long as I have anything to do with the administration of the law, I shall see that the right people are hit. But it will be for the regulations to provide
for this. The regulations will be administered with common sense and against the men behind the scenes, the directing brains. No regulations would be satisfactory in cases of this sort unless they made it possible to go behind the small man and to get at the man who is really directing things. Then my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked as to the adequacy of the penalty. It was suggested that in a particularly bad case where enormous profits are made a penalty of £100 is neither here nor there. I am not sure that I should say the same about three months' imprisonment. After all, if you get someone very rich who may be sent to prison for three months for an offence which must shock the consciences of decent people, you may be sure that at least you ruin that man's prestige.

Mr. EDE: I presume the Attorney-General contemplates persons of both sexes. I have the case of Mrs. Meyrick in mind. She got six months' imprisonment for an offence, and it seemed to have no more effect on her than water on a duck's back.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It should be observed that it is possible to have a fine and imprisonment as well for this offence. Not only that, but you can have the forfeiture of any articles in respect of which the offence was committed; and, further, this is of importance—
or of any profits accruing to the person committing the offence in respect of the transaction to which the offence relates, or the forfeiture of both such articles and such profits.
You might get the case of one of the big meat people making a mistake of 2½d. or something of that sort, and in the course of a short time it amounts to a big sum of money. You would get behind and get at the real directing brain, to the man responsible, and go for him and try to get him three months' imprisonment. You would go to the company and try to get from the company a penalty of £100, which is not very much, and you would get the entire profits which the company had made from the deal which constituted the offence.

Mr. EDE: Would that mean in respect of the particular transaction on which action was taken, or in respect of a whole series of transactions that were involved?
I presume you would deal with him in respect of one act, as between him and a retailer, but you would discover that it was really part of a general policy that had been pursued with many hundreds, and perhaps even thousands, of retailers. Would this cumulative penalty with regard to profits apply to the lot? Did the learned Attorney-General notice yesterday that as long ago as 1350 this House enacted that in these cases double the profits were always to be taken?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Of course I agree that we will probably start with some particular case, but if that particular case revealed that there had been a good deal of illegitimate profit-making going on, I should consider myself perfectly entitled, indeed obliged, to pursue the other cases in order to get the profits. I should go through the whole string of transactions in order to prevent that gentleman making a profit which he ought never to have come by. Then I was asked what was meant by forfeiture. It is plain that the forfeiture mentioned contemplates that the thing to be forfeited is still in the hands of the person who has committed the offence. It would be a farcical thing if you settled that a man had committed an offence by selling a commodity at too high a price and did not make him disgorge the article for which a customer was asked too much. Forfeiture obviously means that where the subject matter of the transaction is still in the hands of the person who committed the offence, it shall be forfeited. Take the case of a man who has bought stock at a certain low price and is endeavouring to retail it to various consumers at an exorbitant price. You would take the whole of the stock that he was trying to hold up.

Mr. EDE: The whole of the remaining stock?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) asked me about the position of a company. He called attention to the use in the Clause of the word "persons":
provide for the trial by courts of summary jurisdiction of persons guilty of offences against the regulations.….
The Interpretation Act provides that the word "persons" includes bodies cor-
porate, and consequently a company is a person. A company can be proceeded against criminally, and often has been. You cannot make a, company stand in the dock and cannot make it go to prison, but you can exact money from a company by means of a fine, and you can forfeit its goods and deprive it of profits. In these cases we would pursue not only the company but also the brains behind, the directors of the company who were responsible for the policy the company had carried out. I was next asked whether these powers could be put into force until there had been some exploitation. The Board of Trade must first of all be satisfied that there has been some exploitation, and directly that appears the Board of Trade can utilise the powers of its regulations.

Mr. ALEXANDER: If what the learned Attorney-General said about forfeiture was correct it ought to be made perfectly clear in the Clause. The Clause states:
together with the forfeiture of any articles in respect of which the offence was committed.
I have had that looked at by a lawyer, and his interpretation was that the articles in respect of which the particular offence had been committed were the articles in, respect of which the prosecution was undertaken, and that it would be necessary to have another form of words if they were to apply to the forfeiture of remaining stocks of similar commodities. It is vital to get the necessary words altered; otherwise you may get the very intention of the promoters of the Bill completely upset. For the sake of good English surely the Government would be glad to amend the words to-day?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I should be sorry to be too confident about it, but I should have thought there was not much doubt as to the meaning of the Clause. The offence would be committed if you got a stock of goods and you tried to sell them at an exorbitant price. The exploitation would be the seeking to get a very large price; the holding up and the asking of such a large price would constitute the offence. Those undoubtedly would be the articles in respect of which the offence had been committed, though they had never been sold, and there would be a forfeiture of those articles.

Mr. H. W. SAMUEL: Does not the learned Attorney-General draw a, distinction between exploiting and attempting to exploit I Does not the word "exploiting" in Sub-section (1) mean that a person has been exploited?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The person who asks the exorbitant price is most certainly exploiting.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: It is to be assumed that in defining the offence care would be taken to cover all possibilities of exploitation. In those circumstances obviously the stock in the shop would be forfeited. I assume it would be considered to be idle to deal with the matter only in cases of sale.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, at the end, to insert the words:
(3) Any regulations made under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder or to the making of any new regulation.
This Amendment deals with the necessity of laying before the House of Commons regulations of the kind proposed in this Bill. I was astounded to find that there was in this Bill no provision at all for laying before the House of Commons regulations through which such widespread control will be exercised over the citizens of this country. It is perfectly true that as regards the general body of Government regulations such regulations are covered by the Rules Publication Act, which provides for a period of notice and also that they must be laid before Parliament, but the Rules Publication Act explicity excepts from that procedure Orders made by the Board of Trade. In those circumstances, when the President of the Board of Trade asks Parliament for the extraordinary powers proposed in this Bill, it is surprising that he should want to exercise those powers by means of regulations made behind the scenes—regulations which are not even to be published in the "London Gazette" and which are not bound to be brought
under consideration and review from time to time in Parliament.
When regulations of this kind are made I regard it as vital that the House of Commons should have the opportunity of saying whether a particular regulation is just or not, and whether it is operating unfairly or not, and that we should, if necessary, have the power to remove it by the usual procedure of a Prayer that the regulation in question be amended or revoked. Out of two or three forms of words available in the Statutes I have chosen a form for this Amendment which will not entail the holding up of the procedure of the Board of Trade in the meantime. Under this Amendment they would still be able to take immediate action against any profiteer and they would receive the necessary indemnification in regard to any action that might be taken under a regulation, which was subsequently amended by the House of Commons. Even at this late stage I hope that the Government are prepared to be reasonable and to give the people of the country in this matter at least their proper rights, and the protection to which they are entitled as citizens.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I should not have said anything on this Amendment except that I was prepared to be reasonable and to accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, had it not been for his expression of amazement that this provision was not already in the Bill: I am glad that such a provision should be in the Bill. In the course of the last two years I have sometimes stipulated for a provision of this kind being put into Measures, and I have not always succeeded in getting it. I was a little surprised to hear of the right hon. Gentleman's amazement in this case, because my mind went back to an occasion not many weeks ago, in the happy days when he and I were collaborating together and when we were dealing with a Bill called the Anomalies Bill, which contained powers to make Orders and Regulations. There was no stipulation in that case that those Regulations should be laid either for negative or positive approval. Still, in the right hon. Gentleman's new circumstances being in Opposition and free from the cares and worries of office—
he can now enjoy a feeling of amazement on this matter, and I for my part certainly will not begrudge him that enjoyment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. EDE: I still think that we should not allow this Clause to go without a protest against the inadequacy of the penalty proposed. We cannot move an Amendment now, but in order to test the feelings of the House and the Government I propose when we reach the Report stage to ask for permission to move an Amendment making the penalty £1,000 instead of £100. I hope that between now and then the Government may consider the matter and that they may see their way to accept such an Amendment. We need not go back on anything which we have said as to the inadequacy of this Clause to cope with the situation, but the Attorney-General has illuminated some of the dark places and matters which appeared to be doubtful have now become clearer as a result of his lucid explanations. We look to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have this Measure administered in the spirit of the speech which he made on paragraph (b) of Subsection (2), and I am sure that while he remains in office we shall not look to him in vain.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2.—(Short title extent and duration.)

Mr. STRAUSS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, to leave out the word "six" and to insert instead thereof the word "twelve."
We are dealing to-day and we were dealing yesterday with two Bills, the less important of the two being the Sunday Performances (Temporary Regulations) Bill. It is proposed, however, that that Measure should continue for 12 months whereas this Measure is only to continue for six months. I do not know why there should be that distinction. There is every argument why this Measure should be continued for 12 months. Everybody hopes that the present financial situation may be cleared up in six months' time,
but I do not think that anyone in his senses really believes it possible that such will be the case. It is most unlikely that the situation which the Bill is designed to meet will have ended at the period when the Bill is due to expire with the powers which are given in it. It would be reasonable to extend the period for a year, and I suggest that it will possibly be necessary, in any case, before the end of six months to extend the Measure for a further period. It should at any rate be made to operate at the same period as the Sunday Performances Bill.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Major Lloyd George): I am sure that the Committee will not expect me to go very deeply into the point raised by the hon. Member. He wants to know why this Bill has not been made to run for 12 months instead of six and he seems to compare this Bill with the Sunday Performances Bill. Of course, no such comparison is possible and the reason why the period of six months has been taken for this Bill is because that is the approximate time for which it is expected that it will be necessary, and that is the period of time which has been fixed in the Measure already passed dealing with the Gold Standard. I disagree with the hon. Member's view that there is no possibility of the stabilisation of the currency before the end of six months, and I do not think that it would create a good impression if we were to make the period of this Bill 12 months instead of six. Everyone, in the House of Commons and outside, hopes that before the end of six months we shall have done something in the way of stabilising our currency, and if our hopes in that respect are not realised, then it will be possible to extend the period of the Bill.

Mr. ALEXANDER: That really means that the Government have been unwise in the action which they have taken. The danger of profiteering is not going to be done away with before the date which has been fixed in the Gold Standard Measure. It is quite likely that that danger will continue. There is a Resolution on the Paper to-day which will have the effect of saving from the executioner's axe the London Passenger Transport Bill which had already passed
through nearly all its stages. That shows how the Government could have dealt with this situation without fixing any date of this kind. They could in 24 hours have passed the Consumers' Council Bill, which had already progressed through all its stages with the exception of Report and Third Reading. That would have given a much juster position for both the consumer and the producer and would have placed upon the Statute Book an Act of a permanent character about which there need have been no anxiety as to its duration. It would have been there for all time as a good deterrent to would-be profiteers and it would have given a just method of procedure where inquiry or action became necessary.
The Government, however, have failed to enact a Measure which took so much precious time in this House and in Committee and instead they give us a Bill which is not likely to operate effectively and which is to be limited to a period of six months after which we are told there is likely to be no need for it. Some of us believe that the need is likely to be continuous. I notice in "The Times" to-day a reference to the purchasing power of the pound at wholesale prices being 98.6 per cent. of the pre-War level. If we take into account the actual cost-of-living figure to-day it would appear that the internal purchasing power of the pound is about 45 per cent, or 50 per cent. below the pre-War purchasing value indicating quite clearly the continuous discrepancy between fluctuations in wholesale prices and fluctuations in retail prices. There is clearly a need for some more permanent Measure to deal with the possible exploitation of the community. This Bill will not do so. It is temporary; its form indicates that the Government are not going to use it in dealing with undue opportunities of overcharging consumers and, it is, as I have said, purely for election purposes.

Mr. H. W. SAMUEL: I support the Amendment. This Bill has obviously been produced for the purpose of dealing with the present financial situation and if the present financial situation continues the need for the Bill will continue. Let us assume that the Committee passes this Amendment. If the Bill continues for 12 months no harm will be done, even though the present finan-
cial situation should come to an end within one month. If the Bill is on the Statute Book and the present financial situation only lasts for another month, the Bill will not be required but if the present financial situation continues then the Bill with this Amendment will be very much needed. It will not be necessary to come back here for the purpose of extending the period of the Bill's operation. Therefore, I suggest that the Amendment could very easily be accepted. It plays for safety, and no harm can be done by accepting it.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, considered.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Power to make regulations as to foodstuffs.)

Mr. EDE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, to leave out the word "hundred," and to insert instead thereof the word "thousand."
I do not intend to repeat anything that I said when we discussed the penalty Clause during the Committee stage, but the effect of this Amendment, if carried, would be to make the fine £1,000 instead of £100.

Mr. STRAUSS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have had an opportunity of considering this Amendment, and I think, after consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend, that £1,000 would be an excessive sum to give to a court of summary jurisdiction, but there is something to be said for exceeding the maximum penalty of £100, because there are not here first and subsequent offences so that the penalty can rise after the first offence. I agree that you might have to take the case of some very large undertaking committing a series of offences, and I think we might compromise by putting in £500.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 2, line 13, leave out the word "one," and insert instead thereof the word "five."—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. MacLAREN: Last night, when we were discussing the Sunday Performances Bill, I was astonished to learn that the Government had issued a three-line Whip in order to call attention to the importance of the Bill; I was amazed when I heard that, in view of the possible difficulties that may be brought into being after this House dissolves, and if not then, at least in the coming winter, when one of the main problems facing us will be the possible rise in the price of food. As a result of this apprehension, no doubt the Government were inspired to bring in this Bill. The Bill, like many Bills brought into this House, begins at the wrong end of the process. It is a Bill to govern the prices of food and drink, instead of being a Bill of a more comprehensive character, because it is not entirely in food and drink that we may look for a certain form of—to use a word which I think should never be used in an Act of Parliament—exploitation, but in rents. We know that up and down the country—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not in order on the Third Reading. The Bill deals only with food and drink.

Mr. MacLAREN: I am merely saying that it should be more comprehensive.

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, but that would not be in order on the Third Reading.

Mr. MacLAREN: My point is that it is not comprehensive enough. The main apprehension is that there might be an increase in the price of food, and one would have thought that the best thing to do to keep down the prices of food would be to increase supplies. The right hon. Gentleman, when he was introducing the Bill, emphasised the point that we were subject in this country to—

Mr. SPEAKER: That would not be in order on this question.

Mr. MacLAREN: I am merely replying to the point raised by the Minister.

Mr. SPEAKER: But he did not raise it on the Third Reading.

Mr. MacLAREN: If I am going to be tied down merely to commenting on the Bill, and not showing as best I can that it does not cope with the situation at
all, and that it is the wrong way to deal with a rise in the prices of food, I have at least given a hint of what I think might have been done to increase the supplies in the country and keep down prices. With regard to this whole bureaucratic tendency of running around and inquiring and nosing into people's little shops, and finding out what they are all doing, I believe in allowing the free operation of natural economic laws to determine prices, and not in calling upon busybodies to run along and see what everybody else is doing. It seems, however, that one is left almost alone in this House to advocate freedom of action and leaving to the operation of natural law those things which we now seem to think the bureaucracy in Whitehall can do under the instructions of Governments. It has been tried in other countries, and wherever you go in Australia, for instance, and make inquiries as to the operation of the fixation of prices, you hear all sorts of complaints, and not merely complaints, but reports as to the way in which certain people who are selling at prices which may be deemed to be inordinate are allowed to continue those prices if a certain amount of consideration is handed over between the man in the shop and the inspector. I am not saying that that would happen here, but the temptations are there, none the less.
Your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, has been so severe that I feel that my wings are clipped, because I looked forward to the Third Reading to give the Bill a proper trouncing, and I hoped to make it plain that there were other ways and means of dealing with food prices than by setting up machinery of this kind. I was interested to notice that the Minister said he hoped that six months would be quite enough time to give this Bill, and indeed it would not be proper in the interests of—shall I use the phrase?—window-dressing to extend the six months to a year. But surely we cannot look at what is lying ahead of us without feeling that measures will have to be prolonged much longer than six months. There are 12 months lying ahead of us, and it will take a very wise Government, and very busy all the time, and much more busy during the next 12 months than the Prime Minister was during the past two years, to reconstruct society and rear it into some semblance of normality out of
the mess in which it now finds itself. By the end of six months, probably, the difficulties will have been accentuated, what with the drop in wages caused by the insurance policy and the tendency for prices to rise.
I was amazed to hear the Minister suggest that we had certain supplies in the country which he thought would be quite sufficient to cope with any emergency, because last week one of the leading financial journals of this country tabulated almost a column of articles that were bound to rise in price in the near future; and, if that is so, I do not think we should be too complacent, and think that by passing this Bill, six months will see us into safety.
With regard to the loose phrasing of the Bill, I did not enter into the discussion on that point, but I think the Attorney-General will agree that certain words in the Bill are not in purely legal language. The word "exploitation" is used. I do not know how the Minister is going to be quite clear in his own mind as to when exploitation really takes place. If certain rises take place in rents and rates, and these are incorporated in prices, will it be deemed to be exploitation if the shopkeepers take advantage of that situation, or will it be deemed to be in the natural course when increased taxation and local rates—as undoubtedly will happen, owing to the distress in local areas—take place and are merged in prices? Will not the Minister act, but deem it to be in the normal course that prices should rise in proportion? It would be interesting also to know how a court of law would define the word "exploitation." I think it would be much better to put in the proper words, such as "taking advantage of a certain situation" and to get rid of this word "exploitation." I am afraid the Prime Minister has had a hand in this and has got back to his old soap box days and used this word which they used to sling about in his earlier period.
Further in the Clause I notice that the phrase "unreasonable increase in price" is used in a negative way. When is a rise in price deemed to be reasonable or unreasonable I can conceive two barristers in the Law Courts having a fine time on that point, and the Attorney-General, from his experience before the House of Lords in questions of appeal on
the De-rating Act, will agree that much clearer language than this has given no end of opportunity for litigation and expense. Your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, by which I must abide, and which was due, no doubt, to your apprehension that I was about to refer to something which is very near to my heart, has rather compelled me to put on the soft pedal. The Bill is necessary in present circumstances, but I only wish that the two years that have passed had been more fully used by the Prime Minister in those nights when he frittered away his time and no one could get him tied down to anything, and when entertaining Charlie Chaplin and Mary Pickford was more in his line than preparing the country for the crisis that was coming, philandering rather than preparing himself for his task—

Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing in the Bill about that.

Mr. MacLAREN: There is not, but we are driven to tactics of this kind by a sudden crisis and by virtue of the fact that nothing was done to prepare the country for the crisis in which it finds itself. Surely I am not going to be entirely debarred from making a reflection on the man who is now Prime Minister of England and who now tells us that we must resort to measures of emergency and take immediate and drastic action. I am going to tell the Prime Minister that this Bill would not have been necessary if he had been more assiduous in his task, had appreciated the tendency in this country during the past two years and had prepared for the emergency that was inevitably coming. You will therefore excuse me, Mr. Speaker, if I am a little heated. I feel strongly because for two years I had to sit and watch while the Government, instead of preparing for these difficulties, did nothing. It, therefore, ill becomes the Prime Minister and the Government now to promote measures with which in their heart of hearts they do not agree. They are compelled by circumstances to promote schemes and Bills which a few weeks ago they would have denounced and laughed at with derision. We will see how this Bill operates. As an opponent
of all this finicky, bureaucratic inspection of the individual, I shall take a pathological interest in it and see how it operates. If preparations had been made for the crisis, the Government, instead of resorting to measures of this kind, would have made opportunities in the country to give a chance to home supplies of food, and freed the country from the rise and fall of prices which depend on the exigencies of the moment.

Mr. PALIN: There is certainly grave necessity for a Measure of this kind, particularly in certain parts of the country such as the district that I represent. If I thought that the Bill would be operated ruthlessly, I would be prepared to welcome it, but I cannot believe that the President of the Board of Trade is sincere in the various protestations that he has made in the last few weeks that there is no exploitation of food and other necessaries. Many of us know that there has been, and to bring in this Measure now is like locking the door after the horse has been stolen. If, however, it is a death-bed repentance, we should welcome it because the Measures which the Government have introduced in this so-called emergency will undoubtedly cause a great deal of suffering, which would be intensified if the exploitation of food and other necessaries were persisted in.
I am rather surprised at the machinery which has been set up. So far as I can understand the President's lucid explanation, the machinery of detection and for bringing the malefactor to justice will be so complicated that it is doubtful whether anybody will be detected, and if they are detected, ever brought to justice. There will be a difficulty in securing a conviction, and the Bill seems to me to resolve itself very largely into what has been described as a piece of window-dressing to cover up the misdeeds of previous legislation. However, I can only hope that the Bill may have the effect which the President pretends that it will have. I have serious doubts, and I am afraid that when the "doctor's mandate" becomes operative the prescription will still be starvation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

SUNDAY PERFORMANCES (TEMPORARY REGULATION) BILL.

Considered in Committee; and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. MORRIS: Last night, on the Second Reading of the Bill, I put forward reasons why it should not be proceeded with. Nothing has arisen in the circumstances which would justify the Government in putting it forward. It was suggested by the Prime Minister this afternoon that the Bill was being brought forward at this time merely because a number of prosecutions might be brought unless the Bill were passed into law. That cannot affect the decision of this House. The fact that there are a number of prosecutions outstanding, and that the Courts may be congested because of the breaches of the law that have taken place, has nothing to do with this House. This House is concerned only with legislating, and it is for other bodies to enforce the law. We are not here to save other bodies, whose business it is to enforce the law, from enforcing it or from the consequences that arise from breaches of the law. If that be the new doctrine of the Prime Minister, clearly if there were a large number of law-breakers in the country who united to demand legislation, and the courts were in danger of being congested, legislation must be introduced to remedy all that the law breakers think ought to be done. That is the doctrine upon which the House is asked to endorse this Bill.
6.0 p.m.
The learned Attorney-General last night put forward a number of arguments in support of this Bill which he must have known did not actually apply to the conditions upon which this Bill is based. He asked the House if it were intended to make the opening of the Zoological Gardens on Sunday unlawful. The Zoological Gardens to-day opens on Sunday, but not unlawfully. They open perfectly lawfully, for there is no charge for admission. People can be admitted only on a fellow's ticket. The essence of the Act of 1780 is that there shall be no charge for admission to places of amusement, and that a house does not become
a disorderly house unless a charge for admission is made. Concerts can lawfully be held on Sunday to-day, provided there is no charge for admission. The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs cited a case decided by the High Court in 1897. In that case the question arose whether there was any difference when payment was made for reserved seats—when the performance was a part free and part payment performance, and it was held that that was not a breach of the Act of 1780. Therefore, it is idle for the Attorney-General to say, "Do you want to make these concerts unlawful?" They are not unlawful unless there is a, charge for admission. Then it was asked whether we wanted to make debates or political meetings on a Sunday unlawful. I have no doubt that argument was mainly addressed to the benches opposite. Political meetings on a Sunday are not unlawful, unless an admission fee is charged. I have no doubt that sometimes a number of seats are reserved, though I do not know whether hon. Members opposite have reserved seats at their political meetings; but even in that case those meetings would not come within the Act of 1780, because they would be protected by the case of Wright and Williams. Therefore, the whole of the argument was entirely irrelevant to the present position. The Bill itself departs very widely from the status quo which it was intended to preserve.
I do not want to repeat the arguments I used last night, but before the Bill passes I would like to have some assurance about the second Clause. I pointed out last night that the Bill does not apply to those authorities which hitherto have not entered into an unlawful agreement with cinemas to permit opening on Sundays, but really they are being encouraged, almost invited, by reason of the additional protection afforded by Clause 2, to enter into such an unlawful agreement to permit Sunday opening. The Bill does not intend this, and I have no doubt it is not the intention of the Government, but as things stand these authorities can enter into an unlawful agreement, and, when they have done so, they are protected by Clause 2. At present if those local authorities agree to Sunday opening the cinema proprietors open their cinemas subject to the risk of an action at the instance of
a common informer. Under Clause 2 they will no longer be subjected to the risk of an action by a common informer unless such action has been sanctioned by the Attorney-General. That is a total change in the position with regard not only to cinemas which are opening to-day, but those cinemas which may open unlawfully in the coming year.
Is the right hon. Gentleman going to say that if the common informer takes action in such cases he will sanction such action? If he is going to refuse his fiat because he dislikes the common informer, it is idle for him to say that this Bill does nothing more than make regular the present position. He will be changing the position in a far-reaching way. That would be totally inconsistent with the main argument for the Bill. The main argument is that this is purely a temporary Measure to last for a year while the House has time to reconsider the whole position. We are really driving a coach-and-four through the whole of the existing position, and the real danger with regard to this Bill is that, having found a satisfactory arrangement for London and the other areas where Sunday opening is now permitted such as enables the question to be shelved for the moment, an attempt will then be made to shelve it permanently, and to leave London and those other areas on a different basis from the other parts of the country, by including this Bill in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I know that an assurance has been given that that will not be done, but that assurance is totally unconvincing. With every respect both to the Under-Secretary and to the learned Attorney-General, they cannot prevent this Measure being put into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, unless they themselves remain in office to carry out their own undertaking.
I have no desire to repeat the arguments put forward last night, but I do enter a most emphatic protest against this Bill being passed at this time, when there can be no state of emergency, and the previous Bill would not have become law until December. The question could have been submitted to the electorate at the forthcoming election, and they could have decided how the new Government should deal with it. No more time would be required to deal with it after the election than would have been occupied if the old Bill had been pursuing its
ordinary course. In a time of crisis such a patchwork Bill as this ought not to have been put forward, and I ask the House to reject it on Third Reading.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I desire to support my hon. Friend in opposing the Third Reading of this Measure. Members were called back at this period of the Session in order to support the National Government in dealing with a national emergency, and I am one of those who have supported the Government, but for the life of me I cannot see any national emergency arising out of this Bill, and, quite frankly, I resent the attitude of the Government in using this emergency Session to put through a substitute for a Bill which probably would never have passed the House had it pursued the normal course before we adjourned. The excuse put forward is, "There is no reason to worry; this is a purely temporary Measure until we can deal with the matter satisfactorily." Many Members have heard that excuse used in regard to different Measures, and have then found that there are means of continuing what are called temporary Measures for a very long time. If the House now assents to the Third Reading it may very well be that next Session the Government will say, "We have not time to discuss now whether cinemas should be open on Sunday or not and we will make temporary provision to continue this Bill for another year." So it will go on from year to year. I accept the assurance that it is meant to be only a temporary Measure, but in the emergency which may exist next year and for a few more years to come we may find this temporary Measure coming to embody the permanent law of the country.
This is a Bill to legalise something which everybody admits is illegal, which the courts, after a most careful consideration of the law, have declared to be illegal. I agree that Parliament can legalise anything it likes. I do not want to say, as some people do, that Parliament can do anything except make a man a woman and a woman a man, but it can make anything which has been illegal become legal. It is altogether a different proposition, however, for Parliament to say, "We know that a thing is illegal, we do not think it should be made legal from now onwards for ever, but we will make it legal for a
year." That is a very vicious proposition to put before the House. I think that the Government are very unwise in pressing this Measure forward. They will offend the views and consciences of a large number of people who represent the very opinion on which they will rely in asking for the support of the country to deal with a national emergency.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. MARCH: I wish to support this Bill, and hope the House will notice that, in spite of all the passion which has been shown by a group of hon. Members opposite, they were not here to move their Amendments. If they desire to put this matter in their election programme, there is nothing to stop them from doing it, but I, as a London Member, have had a sufficiently strong intimation from the people in my division and others in the East End that they desire that cinemas should be allowed to continue to open on Sundays under the same conditions as have existed for several years. During that time we have thought that the procedure was right, and I think it is quite time the Government framed a Measure to put things right. As I understand it, this is a purely temporary Measure, for 12 months only. In the meantime, I hope that whatever Government is in power will bring forward legislation to get rid of these ancient Acts which have been in operation for so many years and introduce something more up-to-date, such as the people can understand. I was not surprised to find the Liberal Members running away, because in my experience of government, and municipal matters they very often get up and speak against a proposal and then walk away and will not show their pluck by voting one way or the other. Just now one of them desired to get the House counted out, but that missed fire. You never can depend upon them, or know where they are, and what they are going to do. Very frequently they say one thing and do another. I think it is a useful thing to pass this Bill for 12 months, and allow people to be entertained on Sundays as they wish to be entertained.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I shall be very brief in my observations, because this subject has already been thoroughly
thrashed out. I entirely agree with the observations of the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. March), who showed refreshing common sense, if I may say so, in the course of his speech. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Bill said that I was quite wrong in my statement that we were carrying on as before. A reference was made to the opening of the Zoo on Sundays, but there is a special Clause in the Act which provides that if the entertainment is carried on at the expense of a number of subscribers who are entitled to admission by virtue of being subscribers, that constitutes exactly the same thing as payment by money. Certainly the Sunday opening of Whipsnade, where a fee of 6d. is charged, is illegal. As far as I may have anything to do with these cases in the future, I should never dream of granting my fiat to a common informer in such a case as the opening of the Zoo on Sundays. I now turn to consider debates. It is a very common practice in some places to have debates on Sunday where there are a few reserved seats for which a charge is made, and the money raised in that way goes towards the cost of holding the meeting. It is true that in the case of Wright v. Williams it was decided that that was not an offence against the Sunday Observance Act, hut the recent decision in the Court of Appeal has indicated that that decision was wrong, and it was laid down that if you reserve a number of seats at meetings of that kind where somebody pays for them that is a criminal offence. As long as I am Attorney-General, I would like to say that I shall never give my fiat to a common informer in a case of that kind.
I now turn to consider cinemas. I regard this Bill as something setting out the limits of what ought to be done. If a cinema is opened on Sundays in an area where neither cinemas nor concerts have ever before been opened or held on Sundays that would be a breach of the law, and it would be the duty of the Attorney-General, whether he likes it or not, to see that the law is carried out. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) said that the Government were seeking by this Measure to make legal what is now illegal. We are seeking by this-Bill to alter the law. I quite agree that in most Bills brought before this House you seek to make
illegal what was previously legal, but we are not engaged in that task now because we are trying to remove an unnecessary illegality.

Mr. EDE: I wish to say a few words in support of this Bill. In my own constituency there are no cinemas open for Sunday performances, but certain churches, Established and Free, have their membership unite on Sunday evening, and they sometimes give concerts on behalf of the local hospital and various other charitable organisations, and a fee is charged for admission. Unless this Measure is passed, the whole of those concerts during the coming winter will become illegal. All that this Bill does is to provide that such concerts may be held during the coming winter, and it also provides that cinemas, not previously open on Sundays, will not be allowed to open under the provisions of this Measure. It seems to me that that is an eminently satisfactory way of arriving at the temporary arrangement.
This Measure arises out of a quarrel, towards the end of the 18th century, between the Countess of Huntingdon and the wife of Archbishop Cornwallis. Archbishop Cornwallis was a son of the same college at Cambridge as myself. He had the misfortune to have his right hand in-

jured, but it is recorded in the Dictionary of National Biography that he afterwards became a most dexterous dealer of cards with his left hand. The Archbishop married someone who seems to have ruled him completely, but, having only one hand, probably he was not able to deal out justice to her as well as he was able to deal cards. The Archbishop's wife had rout parties on Sundays which aroused the indignation of the Countess of Huntingdon, and consequently these disputes arose. The present Bill is a common-sense Measure to put a temporary end to the disputes of 150 years, and that is at least a matter on which this House, in its closing hours, may find some satisfaction. It has done little since it reassembled on 8th September that will redound to its credit at the bar of history. Indeed, I think we shall be regarded as the most contemptible House of Commons that has ever sat since Oliver Cromwell turned the Rump out. This Measure, however, represents a modicum of common sense, which perhaps may be regarded as somewhat an extenuating circumstance.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 47.

Division No. 521.]
AYES.
[6.23 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Church. Major A. G.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Aske, Sir Robert
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Groves, Thomas E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Colfox, Major William Philip
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Colman, N. C. D.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Colville, Major D. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Baldwin, Rt. Hen. Stanley (Bewdley)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Cooper, A. Duff
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Bainlel, Lord
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hanbury, C.


Barnes, Alfred John
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Batey, Joseph
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Harbord, A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Harris, Percy A.


Beaumont, M. W.
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hartington, Marquess of


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Haycock, A. W.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Birkett, W. Norman
Day, Harry
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Bracken, B.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Ede, James Chuter
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Briscoe, Richard George
Eden, Captain Anthony
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Ferguson, Sir John
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Buchan. John
Foot, Isaac
Knight, Holford


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lamb, Sir J. O.


Butler, R. A.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lawson, John James


Campbell, E. T.
Gillett, George M.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Carter, w. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Gray, Milner
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Long, Major Hon. Eric
Power, Sir John Cecil
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lymington, Viscount
Ramsbotham, H.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Remer. John R.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Thurtle, Ernest


March, S.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Marjoribanks, Edward
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Train, J.


Markham, S. F.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Marley, J.
Salmon, Major I.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Samuel, A, M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Middleton, G.
Samuel. Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sanders, W. S.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Montague, Frederick
Savery, S. S.
Wells, Sydney R.


Morley, Ralph
Scurr, John
White, H. G.


Muggeridge, H. T.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Muirhead, A. J.
Skelton, A. N.
Withers, Sir John James


Nail Cain, A. R. N.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Womersley, W. J.


O'Connor, T. J.
Smithers, Waldron
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Palin, John Henry
Southby, Commander A. R. J.



Peake, Capt. Osbert
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Penny, Sir George
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Captain Wallace and Viscount


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Eimley.


Perry, S. F.
Strauss, G. R.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, west)
Hayes, John Henry
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Bevan, Aneurln (Ebbw Vale)
Hopkin, Daniel
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Blindell, James
Jenkins, Sir William
Sawyer, G. F.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Jones, Llewellyn, F.
Shield, George William


Cowan, D. M.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Simmons, C. J.


Daggar, George
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Simms, Major-General J.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


England, Colonel A.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Fermoy, Lord
Mort, D. L.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L, (Exeter)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardle, David (Rutherglen)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Mr. Hopkin Morris and Mr. Hadyn


Hardle, C. D. (Springburn)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Jones.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I beg to move,
That further proceedings on the London Passenger Transport Bill be suspended till the next Session of Parliament:
That on any day in that Session a Motion may be made, after notice, by a Minister of the Crown, to be decided without amendment or debate, that proceedings on that Rill may be resumed:
If that Motion is decided in the affirmative, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to call upon the Minister in charge to present the Bill in the form in which it stood when the proceedings thereon were suspended, and the Bill shall be ordered to be printed and all Standing Orders applicable shall be deemed to have been complied with and the Bill shall be deemed to have been read a Second time, and to have been reported from a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons, and shall stand; re-committed to a Committee of the whole House.
I need not describe this Bill; it has been before the House and has received a very large measure of support. There is, however, an opposition to it, which prevented us from getting it this Session, but the Government are under the impression that there la a real desire that the Bill should remain alive until next Session. It is a large Measure of a constructive character. It is based upon agreements between railway companies, underground companies, public authorities, tramway companies and so on, and, if it were to be dropped now, it matters not what Government is in office, this problem of London traffic must be dealt with. The procedure that we suggest is a very well established one. In 1903, for instance, a Motion similar to that which I am now moving was made with regard to the Port of London Authority Bill, which was then before the House, and on that occasion Mr. Balfour made this observation:
I have to say that I do not think it would be practicable, at the present period of the Session and in the present state of
public business, to proceed with the discussion of this Bill on Report. On the other hand, it is quite clear that the Bill, for all essential purposes, ought to be ranked as a Private Bill and treated as a Private Bill, so that the immense expenditure incurred by persons interested in the Bill should not be entirely thrown away, as it would be if the Bill were dropped. I propose, therefore, to apply to this Bill the practice which this House has so long sanctioned in regard to Private Bills, and I shall put down a Motion the effect of which will be to carry it over till next Session and to enable the Government to resume it next Session at the precise point at which we leave it this Session.
That is exactly what I am asking the House to do at the present moment. I might also remind the House that, at the end of the last Parliament, the London Traffic Bills promoted by the London County Council and the underground companies were allowed to be carried over. If this Motion be carried, it will apply irrespective of the Dissolution of Parliament, and, therefore, when we return, we shall be able to take up the Bill and, I hope, come to a, satisfactory conclusion regarding it.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I should like to say that on this side of the House we welcome the decision of the Government with respect to this Bill, to carry over the later stages of its consideration to the next Session. The Prime Minister said that the procedure was well established, but, of course, the number of precedents is small, though, it is quite true that the particular instances which he mentioned are just the kind of instances which would justify the procedure in this case. Anyone who has any interest at all in the reorganisation of London traffic and the co-ordination that is necessary before one gets anything like public ownership, which was the underlying principle in the Bill, knows that it would be exceedingly wasteful to lose all the time and expense which have been incurred in the course of the proceedings on this Bill. However, I am bound to say, and I am sure the Prime Minister will not mind my saying it, that I think it is a very great pity that this is the only Bill which his Government has seen fit to carry over into next Session. [Interruption.] I was coming to one or two instances. The Bills which have already passed through this House and have been held up in another place are Bills which have progressed so far, and in respect of which so
much time and energy has been expended, that it would certainly be justifiable to carry them over—[Interruption.]

Mr. MacLAREN: It is contemptible humbug to use a phrase like that.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. ALEXANDER: All that I want to point out is that, if it is open to the present Government to make use of precedents in order to carry over this Bill, however desirable it is, it is also open to them to conserve the expenditure of time and money that has already been given to Bills like the Town and Country Planning Bill, the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, and the Consumers' Council Bill; and, if the Government had had the will to do it, they could have passed all of these three Bills in the comparatively few hours which they have taken to force through other Measures not so popular and not so needed in the opinion of some in the country. At the same time, I want to make it clear that on this particular occasion we welcome the decision in the case of this particular Bill.

Mr. HARRIS: When this Bill came before the House for Second Reading, I criticised it rather severely, but I said at the time that I thought it ought to go to a Hybrid Committee. I would remind the House that the Bill is not a Private Bill, but a Bill promoted by the Government but considered by a Hybrid Committee and not by a Committee of the whole House. There is still the Report stage, and the next Parliament will be in a position to amend, alter, modify and, I hope, improve the Bill. I see looking at me with admiration my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. He, too, was a considerable critic of this Bill—an even more severe critic that I was. I am not quite sure that he did not vote against the Second Reading. I did not go so far as that—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend criticised me severely, and, in doing so, even went so far as to give a free advertisement to a book of mine on London government. But we live and learn. I realise that £46,000 of public money has been spent in promoting this Bill. That is very good for the lawyers and the expert witnesses, but we do not want all of it to be wasted. It is a
remarkable and interesting thing that we have seen the various interests, companies and otherwise, squared successfully by a Labour Minister of Transport—a very remarkable achievement on his part; but I think we can still leave to the next House of Commons an opportunity to make the Bill more democratic in sympathy and more in touch with the needs of the country, and I think we are quite justified in following the procedure recommended by the Prime Minister.

Sir BASIL PETO: As one of the two Members representing the Conservative party who had the honour of serving on the Hybrid Committee on this Bill, I am very conscious of what the Prime Minister has said with regard to the immense expenditure of time and money that has already been incurred in connection with the Bill. The Hybrid Committee sat for, I think, 36 days, and they were real day sittings, culminating in one which commenced at 10.30 in the morning and terminated at 10.30 at night, being the final sitting on the Bill. As the Bill left the Hybrid Committee., the two House of Commons Members of the Conservative party were not satisfied with the form in which the Bill is in its central features, namely, the method of appointment of the board and the complete control of the board by the Minister. Neither did that satisfy the county council, who had very great interests in the Bill. But those points of difference do not affect the question which is now before the House, namely, that the Bill should be carried over to a future Parliament. It seems to me to be quite clearly in the public interest that Parliament should decide what shall be the final fate and the final form of a Bill on which an immense amount of public time and public money has been spent. I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) that there is any parallel between this Bill and the other Bills which have proceeded through the ordinary stages in this House and are now before the other House—Bills which were put forward by the party who were then in power, which were hotly contested—

Mr. SPEAKER: This Motion is simply one to carry over this particular Bill; we cannot discuss other Bills.

Sir B. PETO: I was only answering the precise words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough. I wish to say nothing more than that, in my view, the only point that he made in his speech, namely, that the Prime Minister should have gone further and used the same procedure to carry over a number of other Bills, has no weight whatever, because there is no other Bill that is in any way parallel to this one. I am very glad that the Prime Minister has brought forward this Motion. I am glad to think that the whole of that long attendance in Committee is not to be entirely wasted, for the proceedings of that Committee were undoubtedly almost unprecedented as regards the immense amount of expense incurred in counsel's and other fees. Therefore, I feel confident that the House will say that this is a wise Motion, and one which is in the public interest.

Mr. G. HARDIE: This Resolution is put forward on the basis of the amount of money that has been expended and that it would not be good business to let it drop. I take it that the reason behind it is really that this is going to be good for the country and for the unemployed. The Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill would also have provided work for the unemployed.

Mr. SPEAKER: I ruled just D OW that we are not concerned with other Bills, but only with the Bill mentioned in the Motion.

Mr. HARDIE: May I raise another point on the same issue. To those who have followed the proceedings in regard to this Bill and the investigations into the London Traffic Bill of a previous Government, it is quite easy to see that what is taking place now is just another instance of the power of the rampers outside compelling the Prime Minister and the supposed National Government to use their political power to further the interests of this ramp. It is all very well to make excuses about carrying over things that are essential. A remark was made about running away, but who ran away from these essential Bills on which the nation was depending for its reconstruction so far as employment in agriculture was concerned?

Mr. SPEAKER rose—

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am not quite sure that we should accept the Resolution, but I do not intend to oppose it. The Prime Minister mentioned the London Traffic Bill of the last Conservative Government—which was carried over. When the new Government of which he was the head came in, one of the first things that it did was to scrap that Bill and, therefore, the analogy that he uses is not an analogy for to-day, or, if it is, it is an analogy for every other Bill that the late Government brought in. The new Government can scrap this Bill if it does not want it, and that argument applies to all the other Bills on which public money has been expended. Surely, the claim of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) is sound, that all those Bills might equally well have been carried over. But it raises another issue—the assumption that the next Government is likely to deal with the problem in more or less the same way. I think the next Government will be a Socialist Government, and I hope it will deal with the problem in an entirely different manner. The Prime Minister used the taunt in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough that he had run away. I have seen the Prime Minister at work for close on 20 years. I hope he will not run away from the party he is now leading as he has run away from every other party. He is the last person to talk about running away, because his record in running away is the worst in the country.

Ordered,
That further proceedings on the London Passenger Transport Bill be suspended till the next Session of Parliament.

Ordered,
That on any day in that Session a Motion may be made, after notice, by a Minister of the Crown, to be decided without amendment or debate, that proceedings on that Bill may be resumed:
If that Motion is decided in the affirmative, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to call upon the Minister in charge to present the Bill in the form in which it stood when the proceedings thereon were suspended, and the Bill shall be ordered to be printed and all Standing Orders applicable shall he deemed to have been complied with and the Bill shall be deemed to have been read a Second time, and to have been reported from a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons, and shall stand re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPRO- PRIATION) (No. 2) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

DISTURBANCES, GLASGOW.

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 9th September, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have given notice to the Secretary of State for Scotland that I wish to refer to various things that have recently been happening at Glasgow. Last Friday my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) called attention to the large number of arrests in connection with a demonstration on the preceding evening. The Secretary of State promised that an inquiry would be made into the whole matter. Since then I have visited Glasgow, as I generally do over the week-end, and have tried to find out the truth about the proceedings. Last Thursday was not the beginning of this matter. It was made the excuse for certain arrests which I am sure the Secretary of State will find it very difficult to defend. It may be as well if I review the events of the last week or two. Everyone, Conservatives, Liberals and ourselves alike, knew that there was bound to be a great deal of feeling in the country about the cuts. It has already been expressed in the Navy, and it was not human to expect that unemployed men and women would, without protest of some kind, accept these alterations in their standard of life. Therefore, no one can say that demonstrations were not likely to occur. The unemployed set about to organise themselves in the best possible way to demonstrate their grievances. A demonstration took place on the evening of Thursday week attended by about 50,000 people. It was an orderly demonstration, no disturbance took place, and there was
nothing even of a semi-seditious nature. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who organised it?"] It was organised spontaneously by the unemployed themselves.
7.0 p.m.
When in Glasgow I saw various types of men, some Conservatives and some councillors and others, and the unanimous view was that never before was there such an orderly demonstration or one more free from anything that might savour of the least form of violence. There was an effigy of a person to be burned and the only cry of the demonstrators was "Down with the National Government," and we have not yet heard that it is a crime to say "Down with the National Government." At half-past eight in the evening, there is no great traffic in the streets apart from the trams. It is, comparatively speaking, nil. Last Thursday the unemployed had two demonstrations. The first was in the afternoon, and it was attended by many thousands. It took place when the traffic was at its height. That demonstration was allowed. No one interfered with it or said it was wrong. The police took no action to stop it, no arrests were made, and there was not a single police complaint, as far as I know, of obstruction or disorderliness. In the evening men and women to the number of 50,000 or 60,000 assembled on Glasgow Green, a vast open space. The police at once approached the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and told him that the demonstration was not to take place. They gave no reason. My hon. Friend replied that he was not in charge of it, and he could not cancel it, but he was prepared, if the police gave them some little time, ten minutes or a, quarter-of-an-hour, to see the leaders of the procession and consult with them, and with the police as to what was the best line to follow. Surely that was not an unreasonable request, seeing that no previous notice had been given that a demonstration must not be held. With-oat giving the hon. Member for Shettleston any answer to his moderate request, the reply of the police was to arrest him, and not only to arrest him, but to assault him on the way. What happened in those circumstances? Fifty thousand people saw a prominent man arrested without any time being given, and immediately there was pandemonium. Everyone wanted to know what had happened, and there was
a rush. The police then started without rhyme or reason on the defenceless people. I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland will tell us that some had bottles, some had sticks, and some had stones. When you have 50,000 people that will happen, but 999 out of every thousand of the crowd had no missiles of any kind. They did not want to not or to disturb the peace of the city, yet the police started to attack those men, most of them badly fed and badly clad, in a most cruel and vindictive fashion.
I am not going to discuss the merits of the arrests or of the charges, hut, in order to show how the police bad completely lost their heads, I shall deal with the type of arrests made. I attended the Court on Saturday morning and saw the 12 or 13 cases carried over from the Saturday night. One of them was a girl of 17 employed in domestic service in Cambuslang, about five or six miles from the City of Glasgow. She had got her afternoon off on the Thursday, and came into the city to see her people, as she did every Thursday. Within a few minutes of her home she entered an ice-cream shop, because it is a common thing for a girl in Glasgow to go for "slider" of ice-cream and sponge cake. While she was being served by the Italian, there was a great rush and roaring outside, and the girl ran out. She was immediately arrested by the police as an enemy of the National Government and of the Prime Minister in Whitehall. A wee lassie of 17—you should have seen her! Worse than that happened. She was kept in prison on the Thursday night, and, when she was brought before the Court next day, the officials had not even the decency to bail her then. She was kept in prison on Friday night, although she had never seen a gaol before. On Saturday she was brought up roaring and crying and only then got bail in £5. It so happened that somebody was there who had £5—for her folk had not got 5s.—and got bail for her.
Leaving aside the arrest of the hon. Member for Shettleston, let us look at the other arrests. It is only accidental that I am not as poor as they and that they are not here. It is not a case that they have less capacity or that I am greater than they. I saw these men marched in, men I have known from boy-
hood, underfed, underclad and undersized. It showed me how completely the police had acted without any discretion, but were panic-stricken and went there to create trouble and not to create peace. To show how panic-stricken the city has become, I may mention that in part of my division we hold open-air meetings as is done in other divisions. I hope we shall still be able to hold open-air meetings even though the right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. R. MacDonald) is Prime Minister. I hope that we shall get the same treatment as we did under the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin). After all, the right hon. Member for Seaham may think that he is very near the Deity, but some people do not think that he is the Deity, and the sooner he gets that idea out of his head the better. The right hon. Member for Bewdley granted us the right of public meetings when he was in office.
Last Sunday some people in my division decided to hold a meeting in the afternoon at a place where I have held meetings for the last 20 years. Since I was a boy of 17 or 18 I have held meetings there on Sunday afternoons and evenings. It is at the end of a street where there is little or no traffic. What happened last Sunday. Those men turned up to give their meeting at this place where there is no traffic, and they found the police were there in their hundreds to stop the right of free assembly because the Government were going to be criticised. We are going to have a General Election, and those people have a right to influence public opinion on the issues of the election. The right hon. Gentleman will say to me that some of them are Communists. So they are, but Communism is not a crime, and the Prime Minister should be the last to talk about that. During the War the Prime Minister was in the same position then as these poor devils are now, with this difference, that he was well fed and they are not, because the Socialist party saw that he was well fed during the War. He came to Glasgow then to a spot 100 yards from this place After the Sunday during the War that he had formed workers' and soldiers' councils. He addressed an open-air meeting within a short distance of the one which was prohibited, yet the police then allowed
him the right to hold the meeting. Here was a man, who was in favour of soldiers' and sailors' councils a week before, yet the police gave him the right of free assembly and the right to express his opinion. The Prime Minister in those days was very much nearer Communism than ever I was in the past or have been since. I have never exploited the Communists like the Prime Minister did at that time for public office. I differ with the Communists, but I believe that Communists have a right to attack and oppose me and my policy. I fought Communism and fought the greatest Communist this country has so far produced, the late John Maclean, a man of great intelligence and capacity. He had the right to his point of view and to its expression. It will not be any excuse to me that the National Government have suppressed Communist opinion.
I would raise another point in connection with this matter. These men are all in gaol. The ordinary procedure in the Glasgow police courts is that a man appears within about three days before the sheriff and he can get the bail ready and his charge is formulated. What have they done with these cases? They keep them at the local police court until the last possible day, until the seven days are up, in order to keep the application for bail as long as they possibly can. There is really no charge against these men; they have committed no offence. The persons who should be arrested are those who started the riot and attacked the police. There is one other case, of which I have given details to the Secretary of State. It is that of a man who has been attending the Royal Infirmary in Glasgow for some months for some form of fits. He was visiting his mother and, after all, although the police have gone mad, men have still got to go about the streets. He was crossing the road, and was knocked down by the police and got a blow on the heart. An eye-witness went up to him and then asked a detective what should be done to help the man. The reply he got from the detective was, "Throw the devil in the Clyde." Here was a man who suffered from fits lying in the street and that was the reply of the detective. When an inspector was approached, all they got from him was advice to take him to
the police office and see what could be done. He was taken to the police office, and there they were treated with scant courtesy and with anything but decency.
There is another matter in connection with these arrests. One of the men arrested is a candidate for municipal honours. The Member for Shettleston is bound to be a candidate at the next election. The late John Maclean was a candidate when Mr. George Barnes contested my division. He was also candidate when I contested it in 1922. On both those occasions the late John Maclean was undergoing terms of imprisonment. In 1918 he was serving three years for alleged sedition and when I contested the division he was doing a shorter sentence for another form of seditious crime. At that time the Government released John Maclean to fight both his elections. The least the Government can do is to release the men when the elections are on. Surely that can be done. I addressed a huge meeting together with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) on Sunday last and, to show how the police can make for peace or for riot, at that huge meeting of from 15,000 to 50,000 persons—around us were big iron rails and the men climbed upon the railings—a policeman came along and began to ask the men to get down. Some of the men got down, but others refused to get down. There was almost bound to be pandemonium.
What happened? A policeman wiser than the rest came along and said, "Let them stay up there," and they were allowed to stay, with the result that the huge gathering passed off peacefully, without anything untoward taking place. If the police had insisted upon hauling the men down and had batoned them, a not must have ensued. That shows the difference between calm, decent personal responsibility, and what took place on the Thursday before. I put it to the Secretary of State for Scotland that they can approach the subject in two ways. They can go out for blood, and still more blood. They can say that the unemployed must be smashed. They may say that if they allow Glasgow people to demonstrate without smashing them, other places may get going. That sort of thing might be successful for a week,
a fortnight or a month, but at a time like this you cannot smash men and women with a bludgeon because sooner or later they will express themselves.
The Secretary of State for Scotland should recommend the immediate release of everyone concerned, if not unconditionally, at least on bail. The second thing is that he should give the right to these men and women to demonstrate their poverty. I do not want to raise this issue—I only mention it from the point of view of comparison—but if a prominent man or a member of the Royal Family came to Glasgow, you would allow a demonstration and a stoppage of traffic because you would be demonstrating pomp, wealth and privilege. Why cannot poor people demonstrate their poverty as well as wealth demonstrate pomp and privilege I Let the poor demonstrate their sufferings. Surely, if the cuts in unemployment benefit are justified, you cannot be ashamed of the victims of your cuts. Surely, if your cutting down is right, you are not ashamed to see the victims of your cutting down. Let them demonstrate. Let them meet and have the right of free assembly. Do not attack their standard of life and then refuse to meet them on equal terms of debate. If you are going to attack their standard of life, at least be sportsmen and give them the right of debate alongside of you. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to release these men, to give them their liberty, and the unemployed masses the right to express their misery, poverty and degradation in the midst of this great, powerful and wealthy country.

Mr. G. HARDIE: I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will now try to give a reply to a question which I raised on a previous occasion in regard to the beginning of the first disturbance outside what is called the Jail Square. I pointed out to the Secretary of State that several papers, reporting from different observation points, stated that the bulk of the demonstrators was inside the gates before the attack was made. Since making that statement I have had it confirmed from various sources. I hope that by this time something may be said as to why, when the bulk of the demonstrators had passed peacefully inside the gates, an attack was made upon them. I agree entirely with what has been said
with regard to what may be called the temper of both sides. When you get big numbers of people together, it is quite easy to turn a peaceful gathering into one which is not peaceful by some little act on the part of someone. I am very anxious to get to know who was to blame, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland has now the information with regard to that point, because it seems to me that that is where the disturbance really started.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): I, for my part, shall be very glad to give to the House such further information as I possess in reply to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). As regards the incident to which the hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mr. G. Hardie) has referred, I have no further information, but if, as he suggests, these men were subject to an unprovoked attack by the police, it would be a perfectly good defence in the Courts of Law, and it would be tried in a court and decided there. The hon. Member for Gorbals raised two main points. The first is the question of bail for the men who have been arrested and the question of their release. The second is the question of the right to demonstration. The first question is one over which I have no jurisdiction. The question of hail is one entirely for the courts. And even in the case of the men who are candidates for election, the fact that the men are candidates does not alter the situation.

Mr. BUCHANAN: This matter comes under the department of the Lord Advocate. The question of bail is a matter for the competent official, the procurator fiscal. Procurators fiscal who are your servants can advise or can refuse to advise the Crown authorities on the question of bail. That is a point I want to put. I agree that ultimately the sheriff has the last word, but the procurators fiscal have the power to advise, and, in certain cases, can grant bail without the question being decided by the sheriff at all.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The hon. Member for Gorbals agrees that this is a matter for which the Lord Advocate's Department are responsible, and not myself. The
hon. Member asked the House to agree with him that the unemployed shall have the right of demonstration and that speeches should be made against the Prime Minister and the members of His Majesty's Government, and that the cry should be "Down with the National Government." Let me assure him that he is pushing a door which is wide open. No one would suggest for a moment that the citizens of this country have not an absolute right to shout "Down with the National Government," and an absolute right to criticise His Majesty's Ministers. It is no part of the Government's duty to limit or prevent those rights in any degree. On the contrary, I agree that these rights should be enjoyed. There is no distinction such as the hon. Member attempted to draw between a demonstration on the occasion of a visit of notabilities to the City and a demonstration on behalf of the rights of any section of His Majesty's subjects. There is no such distinction. In fact, all demonstrations are allowed provided only that individuals in exercising their right of demonstration and free speech do not infringe the rights of the public as a whole.
Let me apply the general principles to the incidents which took place in Glasgow last week. The hon. Member for Gorbals drew a contrast between what happened last Thursday and the previous Thursday.

Mr. BUCHANAN: And what happened in the afternoon as well.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Let me deal with the main point. I have not the actual information as to what happened in the afternoon. I have information as to what happened on the previous Thursday and what happened last Thursday. On the previous Thursday a permit was granted by the magistrates to hold a meeting and to hold a procession and to have a band, and a crowd of 25,000 persons marched through the streets, and, as far as I am informed, no weapons were carried. They marched in force, and there were no untoward incidents except that the organisation of the procession was not very good, and as a result of that there was great disorganisation of traffic. There were good feeling and forbearance on both sides. There was no interference by
the police. Apart from the disorganisation of traffic, which, after all, causes great loss to Glasgow, the demonstration passed off well. On the second Thursday no permission was given.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Who asked for permission in the first place?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I cannot say.

Mr. BUCHANAN: My information is that no permission was asked either on the first or second occasion. I cannot say whether I am right or wrong, but I made most minute inquiries, and I could not find any record of anybody applying for permission either on the first or on the second Thursday.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: My information is that undoubtedly a permit was granted by a magistrate, and I must ask the hon. Member to accept it, because it is official information which was given to me. On the second occasion no permission was given.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: Was permission sought?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: No permission was given, and at one o'clock a meeting was held in George Square and a deputation was sent to interview the town council, and on their return they intimated that a large mass meeting was to be held that evening. A crowd mustered at night, 60,000 strong. They carried iron bars and batons of wood. Not everyone, but quite a large number, had iron bars. There were no organised baton charges. The hon. Member said that the police were out for blood. He knows Glasgow police better than I do.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do say it.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: They showed the utmost restraint, and it was only when they were surrounded that the city police drew their batons to defend themselves. Before the police took action at all a large number of plate-glass windows were smashed. On 1st October, 95 plate-glass windows were smashed, a large number before the police appeared. Traffic was completely disorganised. The people were out of control. The following is an extract from a report by a superintendent:
I found the Square (Jail Square) and Glasgow Green and converging streets a closely-packed mass of humanity of not less than 40,000 persons of all ages and of both sexes. The noise and bad language were appalling. Windows were smashed in Salt Market and the crash of glass could be clearly heard above the general din. Stones and missiles of every description were being hurled at the foot contingent of police. Weapons of various descriptions were being openly brandished by a contingent arriving from the North in the Salt Market. All traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, was at a standstill. The whole scene was one of the utmost confusion and disorder, with a complete want of control by anyone.
May I draw a contrast between the two demonstrations? The general principle is, that His Majesty's Government recognise the right of individual citizens to free speech and to freedom of demonstration. They say that is the law of the land., but the law must be exercised in such a way as not to interfere with the general rights of the public and of free passage through the streets. Moreover, order must not be broken. The people who have the duty of reconciling these rights are the magistrates, and it is the duty of the people who wish to organise demonstrations to go to the magistrates and get permission to hold their demonstrations. They will find that if they pursue that course, as happened on the first Thursday, the fullest possible facilities will be given to them for their demonstration. The first demonstration passed over without any disturbance or mishap. It. was only the second, demonstration, where no application for a permit was made and where the persons in the demonstrations took weapons, such as iron bars, and broke plate-glass windows that trouble arose. They had no understanding with the magistrates or with the police, and very little order was observed. It was then that the unfortunate and disorderly incidents took place.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Would the demonstrators have the right to proceed through the streets on the second Thursday, if they had no permits from the magistrates?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: No, but—

Mr. WILLIAMS: If they had no right, they were violating the law.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: If they impede traffic they violate the law. It is easy to reconcile these two principles, and the police and the magistrates are always
ready to reconcile those two principles and to make such arrangements as to give freedom of demonstration and freedom of speech, but those who wish to exercise it must do it in such a way that a minimum of inconvenience is caused to the public, a minimum of loss to industry and a minimum of dislocation to traffic. As regards the case of the girl of 17, to whom the hon. Member for Gorbals referred, this is the first time that I have heard of it. I am informed, however, that the girl made no application for bail.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The girl could not make an application. She is only 17. Those people who did get bail were only able to get it after a good deal of negotiation.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am assured by the Lord Advocate that this girl was denied no legal right. With regard to the meeting in Crown Street and Clelland Street, it is true that last Sunday two meetings were to be held in Sloane Street. Great crowds gathered at the place, and it was feared that more shop windows would be broken. A number of shop windows had been broken on previous nights in that neighbourhood, and the police were afraid that more damage would be done. That was the only reason why, to avoid painful incidents, which we all deplore, such as those to which the hon. Member has called attention, the police felt bound to act as they did in that case. The hon. Member also referred to the case of Mr. Rushton. That case was brought to my attention a day or two ago by the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson), who made very strong representations about the case, and explained it very thoroughly. He made forcible representation with regard to Mr. Rushton, stating that he knew him well, and I at once instituted an inquiry.
May I state, in conclusion, that demonstrations will, of course, be held in the future and that we fully recognise the right of individuals to demonstrate? The hon. Member for Gorbals has referred to the Communists. I am afraid that they exploit the grievances of the unemployed at the present time. I can assure the hon. Member that the right of free speech is fully recognised. If the organisers of these demonstrations will
enter into consultation with the magistrates, I have no doubt whatever that they will find that arrangements will be made for such demonstrations to be held in such a way as not to conflict with the rights of the public. If they do that, it will be possible to hold demonstrations and to give expression to strongly held opinions without either endangering the public peace or without any unfortunate incidents, such as those to which the hon. Member has called attention.

Mr. STEPHEN: I thank the right hon. Member for the answer that he has given, but I should like to make a few comments. I cannot say that I am in the least satisfied with the position after hearing the right hon. Gentleman, and I would ask him whether it is not possible to have a public inquiry into the happenings in Glasgow. Our information is quite different from the report that was given to the right hon. Gentleman. In regard to the two demonstrations, for instance, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to go into the question with regard to the permits granted on the one occasion, and the non-possession of the permit on the other occasion. I should like him to inquire into the circumstances why a permit was granted on the one occasion and not having been applied for on the other occasion. Will he also make definite inquiry with regard to the demonstration when the trouble occurred, as to whether there had been any breaking of windows until the arrest of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern)? Our information is entirely to the contrary. The crowd was in a good humour. There had been no disorder, and when the hon. Member for Shettleston was addressed by the police he was willing to consider complying with their refusal to allow the procession to take place, but he asked that he might be given time to consult with those who were responsible for the organisation of the procession. The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is a matter for the courts, but there is more in it than that. It is for the Secretary of State for Scotland to see that the public who are being so much affected by the policy of economy are given an opportunity to demonstrate. In regard to the meeting that was banned, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to deal with this point. It may not be possible for us to get an answer in the House, but I hope that
we shall get an answer before the election takes place. Was it not the case that on the Tuesday night, when there had been no windows broken, there was a prohibition of a meeting in that same place?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I was only asked a question about one meeting, and I gave an answer.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman only had information in regard to the one meeting. I am now taking up the point in order that there may be inquiry into all the points. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the magistrates. I shall be interested to hear whether the magistrates had anything to do with the prohibition of any of the meetings in Glasgow. I doubt whether there has been anything except police interference. I should like to know whether instructions have been given to the local police from headquarters in regard to these meetings?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I cannot possibly answer these questions. The magistrates have the responsibility, and delegate their powers to the police. The police are responsible to the magistrates in the exercise of their powers. These are matters for the magistrates.

Mr. STEPHEN: I should like the Secretary of State to ascertain whether the local police have received instructions to prevent as far as possible this kind of meeting taking place? Have there been any instructions given by the Scottish Office?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I can answer that Certainly not.

Mr. STEPHEN: Or from the Lord Advocate's Department?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison): I can say clearly that no orders have emanated from my Department with regard to the preservation of law and order in the streets of Glasgow, or anywhere else. That is a matter within the jurisdiction of the magistrates, with whom I have nothing to do. I can assure the hon. Member that no such orders as those to which he refers have come from my Department.

Mr. STEPHEN: There is a, widespread impression in Glasgow that there are spies, individuals, employed by the Department. There is a definite feeling that agents provocateur are being employed; that there are individuals who are seeking to stir up the mob and to prevent the orderly organisations taking place; that there are those who would be more extreme than the Communists. The Secretary of State has said that it is a great pity that certain people are seeking to exploit the present difficulties and circumstances of the people. I do not think the Communist party are doing anything in that respect more than any other party. They are seeking to carry on their own work. I do not belong to the Communist party, but I hold that they are entitled to carry on their propaganda to secure the realisation of their ends in the same way as any other political organisation. We are not asking for any favour. I am asking that there should be a further inquiry by the Scottish Office.
The statement made by the Secretary of State that there was so much disorganisation of traffic by the previous week's procession fills me with the utmost misgivings as to the reports which are supplied to him. I made most particular inquiry as to that demonstration, and my informants told me that they were struck with the very orderly character of the procession. The right hon. Gentleman himself knows that on a Thursday evening at half-past eight there is very little in the streets of Glasgow except tramcars and a few motor vehicles. Lorries and such like vehicles are off the road by that time. Consequently, these reports fill me with misgivings when it is said that there was so much disorganisation the previous week. I am anxious to get through the difficult weeks and months that are ahead of us as peacefully as possible. I appeal to the Lord Advocate on the question of bail. This will largely depend on the point of view taken by the Fiscals who are under the direct control of the Lord Advocate—

It being one hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put.

Adjourned at Ten Minutes before Eight o'Clock.